Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

Skip to the bottom

[edit]

To ask a question, use the relevant section of the Reference desk

This page is for discussion of the Reference desk in general.
Please don't post comments here that don't relate to the Reference desk. Other material may be moved.
The guidelines for the Reference desk are at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines.
For help using Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Help desk.

Proposal to delete Ref Desk

Just like clockwork, the complaint about Medeis to Admins has once again led to a proposal to ban the Ref Desk: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Time_to_close_down_the_ref_desks.3F. Bugs supports closing the Ref Desks. StuRat (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mild support only. But if it happens, it would compel the busybodies to find someone else to harass. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Mildly harass. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:28, October 20, 2017 (UTC)

Moved to WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed? -- ToE 08:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition to BB, JBL and SteveBaker also support closing down the Ref Desk. It seems odd to me that people who oppose the Ref Desk's existence would spend so much time on it. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it boggles the mind. It's like they are announcing to the rest of us "This is worthless, and should be destroyed, that's why I spend lots of time there." Steve at least has basically quit the ref desks, so his !vote is less embarrassing. JBL has a PhD in math, so I think he'd be smart enough to know he can just not read or post on the ref desks. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You'd be amazed at how much time most people spend doing things they know isn't productive. ApLundell (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

But, less snarkily, I don't think there's any contradiction.

If the desk is here, it would be even more embarrassing for Wikipedia for it to be un-staffed.

ApLundell (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK SteveBaker's comments there are accurate. He spends very little time here now. I don't see that there's anything wrong, or unusual, in people who used to spend time here feeling things have changed and it's no longer worth it. Or perhaps it was always pointless and they've only just realised. Or maybe some combination of both. This doesn't have to mean that the RD should be closed. On the other hand the RD is part of wikipedia so editors may feel it harms wikipedia in some way and reasonably feel it should be closed. Ignoring a problem is not always the best solution. These and other issues have been dealt with to some extent in that very discussion so I don't think they should be a surprised to anyone whether or not you agree with these views. Putting these two together, I'm not sure why it should be unexpected that someone who used to, but no longer, spent a lot of time here may now feel it should be closed. I would agree it's perhaps a little more surprising for anyone who does still spend a lot of time here, although there are various reasons even there why it may arise. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Passing of a great contributor

After recently mentioning User:DrChrissy as one of our better ref desk respondents, it has come to my attention that DrChrissy has passed away this July. I'm not sure how many of you interacted with him here, but whenever I saw his red sig I always knew I was getting good references and explanations from a skilled expert who sincerely loved helping others learn and understand the wonders of biology. Some wikipedians are sharing memories and sympathy over at User_talk:DrChrissy#CHERISHED_MEMORIES, I assume at least some of his meatspace friends and family are reading along. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

A worthy opponent, he will be missed. Our last skirmish: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2017_May_22#Agricultural_revolution_and_cats. StuRat (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

He called you out on your crap just like everyone else does. This isn't the Model UN, you don't skirmish with opponents here. You're obviously just openly trolling now. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

(I won't respond because this is not the appropriate place for an argument. StuRat (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC))

What can I say? I will sorely miss him, and his amazing explanations of animals, zoology, biology, and veterinary medicine! :( Eliyohub (talk) 14:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing questions reverted

I have reverted several question closures by Legacypc, as such closures are not the normal practice on these boards. The reasons given for a closure do not match the rules specified for these RD's. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I will add a bit more: The references desks are not just for "building the encyclopedia". They are also there for readers to find out information that might be held in Wikipedia, or elsewhere. There is a clear prohibition on certain types of questions. But the "How do I ..." questions are not prohibited. They just need appropriate answers to say that Wikipedia has and that we cannot help with advice or opinions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, and very similar to what I said to him at the Suits Q [1]: "You've made a fundamental mistake in thinking the purpose of the Ref Desk is SOLELY to improve Wikipedia articles. It does have that purpose, among others, including connecting people to references both inside and outside Wikipedia, and providing useful answers to them." StuRat (talk) 15:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We can talk about reforming the RefDesk, but such reform should not be done unilaterally and out of the blue by a single editor. Obviously. ApLundell (talk) 03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree as well. As I've said directly to LegacyPac, even if there is consensus for reform, the reform they appear to be trying to unilaterally enact makes no sense, except as a backdoor to close the RD. If we only allow content that related to improving articles or is otherwise allowed elsewhere on the encylopaedia, then the RD serves no purpose as that content should almost definitely be elsewhere. This doesn't mean that we should allow any and sundry forums posts, but rather by definition the RDs are intended to allow content that isn't allowed elsewhere namely requests for helping finding references and ultimately information for personal use, and that may or may not eventually relate to improving wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for not pinging me or spelling my name correctly Graeme Bartlett. I addressed your behavior reverting my closes on your talk page and at ANi but you failed to respond in either location. I believe you are an Admin and your behavior overturning my closes is unacceptable. StuRat is headed for a topic ban at ANi and his post here confirms he fails to understand WP:NOTFORUM . A large number of users support closing down the RefDesk, and I'm hardly trying to singlehandly reform things here. Legacypac (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I would really like to know where you get the idea that you have the authority to impose a sacred "close" that can't be reverted. We don't have "closes" here, in the sense of concluding a discussion aimed at consensus. We do sometimes remove questions, and you can call that a "close" if you want to, but it's not at all the same sort of "close" you get at, say, AfD.

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines#When removing or redacting a posting. It does indeed say that one shouldn't restore a question that has been removed simply because one disagrees with the rationale, so that's a point for you. But it also says the person removing a question should generally post a notice on the refdesk talk page (that's this page), and that the remedy if you disagree with a removal is to come to discuss it here. It has been discussed here, and opinion is clearly against you. --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at ANI. [2] ApLundell (talk) 02:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually that is the edit-warring noticeboard. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacypac seems to think he can get away with unilateral hattings because his name isn't Medeis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

G. Bartlett is right, of course. I had confused the administrator's noticeboards with each-other. ApLundell (talk) 02:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Ping versus user template

The user template does seem to ping me, but with a bug/feature: If used more than once on the same page, I am only pinged once for the page, not for each use. This means not for each Q on a Ref Desk board. So, we should probably avoid using it, and stick with either ping or no template at all. Have others had similar experiences ? StuRat (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, there is zero difference in how these work. Both of them simply rely on the user mentions feature of echo, which primarily requires a link to the user page and a newly signed post but also has various other requirements, see mw:Help:Notifications/Notifications types#Mentions and Wikipedia:Notifications for details. Of course as always, notifications aren't considered ultra reliable (including for example the possibility of people disabling them) so if it really matters, it's better to go to a user's user page. BTW it is possible to get notifications when you've failed to, or successfully mentioned another editor although I'm not sure if even these are guaranteed to be accurate. (Well obviously failed notifications alone isn't enough since if the software doesn't recognise you were trying to mention someone it can't tell you it failed. But it's theoretically possible that a successful mention is tied to a notification actually being sent although that would seem to raise privacy issues e.g. it effectively means a user's settings on user mentions are public. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Notification of ANI discussion related to RD

This is a notification of a discussion at ANI related to the RD Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again). I removed an earlier notification, due to concerns the notification may violate WP:Canvassing and dispute over how to deal with these concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 11:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Archived at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive968#StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again). -- ToE 17:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll for reform: require one ref per each answer?

I am testing the waters here before proposing it formally in a widely-read forum. The idea emerged recently at an ANI thread (I had thought up along those lines before, but seeing it written was much clearer).

The idea would be that any post on the RefDesk that makes a factual statement in answer to a question must link to a source for that statement (the responder's authority not being enough source). I do not think a WP:RS-level source should be required (for instance, it happens regularly on the Computing RefDesk that the question was already asked and answered on StackOverflow, and it just was a matter of knowing which words to search), nor that any factual statement should be sourced (risks to stifle discussion and/or bureaucratic enforcement for WP:BLUE-like statements), but I mention both as being within my evaluation of the Overton window.

As a draft for the proposed wording, I suggest altering Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines#Guidelines_for_responding_to_questions as follows: (quoting only the modified paragraph)

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

• direct answers or referrals to Wikipedia articles, web pages, or other sources, including at least one reference to a Wikipedia article, web page, or other source,
• clarifications of other answers, or
• requests for clarification.

Feel free to comment both on the philosophy and the wording. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 21:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Sounds good in theory. Try it for a month and see how it goes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as easily gamed rule creep. That would mean that my recent comment to Lgriot at the language desk would have been improper, because I said I would look for an RS later, or it would mean the response was okay because I linked to something pro forma. Perhaps the standard should be that citing an RS be possible. Even then, this would mean that we would have to stop offering translations of notable texts and stop identifying objects and species in many cases. Even better, the standard should be on the question itself; that it be capable of being answered objectively. μηδείς (talk) 22:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  Problems about questions are a matter for another discussion, feel free to open a new thread. But if you want my $0.02, we already have sufficient rules in place against such questions ("we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate") - the problem is not to entertain questions that fail them.

As for that restriction being easy to game, it surely is an improvement over the "anything goes" that is, policy or not, the current practice. (See: nirvana fallacy)

I don't see how this is a problem for "identifying objects and species" (if you match a photograph to a species, surely you should give a ref for the species, and I would be dubious of such a ref without a picture).

Finally, translation could be carved in as an exception if that is one of a finite number of identified problems, but honestly, I don't see that as a problem. Giving your own translation is no better than giving your own recollection of what physics course you had ten years ago as an answer to a science refdesk question; and surely, we don't want people to do that when at least in theory there is a source out there (a professional translation for the notable text, a physics lecture for the science Q). Yes, if only knowledgeable, past-Dunning-Kruger-point people answered questions, that is an unneeded restriction; but experience has shown that's not the case (I refer you to the VPP thread for diffs, if you really need them). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 22:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion: Start with a machine translation for your ref, the add your own comments about where you think it is off. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to see something along those lines, though I'm not sure what precisely. I think we need the ref desks to work like actual ref desks (with the emphasis on "ref") and with a bit of the rigor that's demanded of actual articles, rather than as free-form verbal diarrhea forums. There's a Michell & Web sketch on YouTube that I thought of when reading the ref desks recently, but I can't link to it as it's a copyvio - but I don't think there's any harm if I suggest "david mitchell reckon" as a search. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment I like the heart of it. Anything to discourage wild-ass guessing and other off-putting filler. ... To me the problem with this proposal is that "requesting clarification" and "Clarifying answers" are very wide umbrellas. I can't really support it without being sure that we won't just create another grey-area to rules-laywer and debate. It may be easier to define narrow categories of prohibited answers, rather than try to define wide categories for all acceptable answers, but perhaps that's just the same can of worms. ApLundell (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• We really do need to allow requests for clarification, like: "You just linked to a 1000 page document, what portion of it do you think answers the Q ?" ... "Oh, sorry, page 238, 3rd paragraph." StuRat (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. But I can already imagine the rules lawyering on what constitutes legitimate clarifications and what's just noise and discussion. It already makes my head hurt. I acknowledge that I do not have a better suggestion, and perhaps I'm just being a pessimist. ApLundell (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Too rigid; would hamper good-faith responders and make the desks less useful. Really we do want access to people's personal knowledge, when that knowledge is real rather than imagined. It's unfortunate that some responders have too high an estimate of what they actually know, but I don't think this is the way to fix it. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

  We do want access to people's personal knowledge, when that knowledge is real rather than imagined. But how would you propose to check that this knowledge is real rather than imagined? Forget about writing something that could be codified as a Wikipedia policy and pass an RfC, the problem runs deeper. By definition, whoever is posting that knowledge cannot know whether it is or not solid; if we require them to check upfront we might as well demand the reference they checked against (this is the intended effect of the proposal); and requiring validation by other editors, in addition to being rigid as well, is no guarantee by the same token (cf. the famous "What is the length of the Emperor of China's nose?" metaphor in Feynmann's Judging book by their covers).

If your argument is that getting some good but unsourced answers is worth getting some rubbish answers, at least for the current ratio of rubbish to unsourced-yet-good, fine - let's agree to disagree. But if your argument is that we should find some unspecified way to do better, I feel compelled to link again to the nirvana fallacy. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 00:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, my position is as you say that "getting some good but unsourced answers is worth getting some rubbish answers". That doesn't mean we can't work on the S/N ratio, but it does mean that I think the current ratio is not a good reason to do anything drastic. --Trovatore (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Ditto Trovatore's comments and because we already have the guideline "The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources." posted at the top of each page. Lets keep it simple. I doubt that adding more words would deter those that use the ref desks as a social gathering. -- Tom N talk/contrib 02:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comment, we know how a good system with such requirements can be made to work well, you'll end up with the same sort of system used by scientific journals. So, any answer that I would give would have to go to a scientific peer review process to check if everything is properly referenced, whether my answer is well written and addresses the question in an appropriate way. Count Iblis (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. A lot of the math type questions are unreferenceable in pure form -- I mean, people could give tangentially related general references, but if they are doing it as a procedural CYA that is a bad thing. I would support a prominent suggestion (somewhere that is more likely to be read) that it is best practice to include sources. Coming to a question without a source is like coming to a party without something to eat/drink - I mean, you can do it, but it's not good form. But with StuRat having been thrown under the bus I don't think we have nearly as much issue with anyone else regarding this. Wnt (talk) 00:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Including sources in a response is a good idea. But it should not be a requirement. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose in this absolute form; there are many responses which will not necessarily have sources. While we want to avoid the sort of "personal experiences" "trust me" "this is just common sense so I don't need sources" kind of answers, a blanket ban on responses without sources would also ban responders from, for example, asking clarifying questions of the OP which is a necessary part of being useful to the OP. When it comes to providing substantive responses, we SHOULD strive to direct OP to further reading, but there are situations, such as asking clarifying questions or explaining something in an already cited source, where we can still be useful without necessarily citing something every time. --Jayron32 15:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Just addressing the latter part of your reply: there are situations, such as asking clarifying questions or explaining something in an already cited source, where we can still be useful without necessarily citing something every time. The sourcing requirement would only apply to the direct answers, i.e. the first bullet point in the classification of the posts, not to the other two points ("clarifications of other answers", "requests for clarification"). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  The problem is that it is not easy to clearly delineate between the types of responses, and the LAST thing we want to do is give some of our self-appointed policemen yet ANOTHER reason to meddle with other people's work. The stipulation "you should not do this" is too often mistaken by some people to mean "the appropriate response is to remove or hat it". Giving those people more reasons to be disruptive is hardly useful. --Jayron32 15:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  More to the point: Anytime we institute a requirement, someone decides it is their job to ENFORCE that requirement. The cure is worse than the disease, here. --Jayron32 15:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  I can see an argument that the boundaries between the three types of answers are too fuzzy and allow gaming. But the only logical conclusion of the absolute view you give here is that no RefDesk-specific rule should ever be imposed because this would cause rogue policing. Surely, the more logical thinking is that if you see rogue policing, you drag its author to WP:ANI for disruptive editing or similar, and if this fails to produce any action you revisit your premise that their actions were indeed disruptive. (Yes, I am aware some ANI threads drown in quicksand even when action would have been justified. My point is that if rules cannot be enforced on the RefDesks, it would warrant looking into why it is so, not abandoning the idea of having rules at all.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:17, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  The greater issue is whether behavioral norms are enforced as rules in this way. When writing guidelines, one has to "design for evil". It is not enough to merely have wise policies, it is necessary to consider how people will abuse your policies to be disruptive themselves and then account for that in your decisions on how to write them. I'm not advocating anarchy, but maintaining discipline is not ONLY accomplished by having rules. There are other means of establishing and encouraging behavioral norms, and writing down a rule is not always it. --Jayron32 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Some things can't be legislated. A sophisticated, urbane reference desk is desirable. But that quality is really a function of the people present, not of a rule imposed. Perfection is unattainable. All we can do is optimize for a good outcome. What that means in practice is that those "regulars" who use the reference desks should disproportionately influence "best practice". What has been decried as "bickering" is a necessary functioning of the reference desk's self-correcting process. Bus stop (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

  Excellently stated. I've always felt that the best correction is not to remove, delete, or obscure something wrong, but to correct. Tell readers what is wrong with someone's question or answer. Don't remove it. Enforce behavioral norms through correction rather than coersion. Explain what the problem is rather than punish the person who caused the problem. --Jayron32 16:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of ArbCom Request

I have requested that the ArbCom open a case concerning conduct at the Reference Desks. I have suggested that the ArbCom can take this on either of two tracks. The fast track would be to implement ArbCom discretionary sanctions as a device to permit expedited sanctions for editors who are disruptive in any of various ways. The slow track would be a full evidentiary hearing, which should result in discretionary sanctions as well, but could also result in the ArbCom imposing their own sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct_at_Reference_Desks. Statements may be made to the ArbCom to support (or oppose) accepting the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Misc desk is 100% empty.

Did the bot get over-zealous, or has question volume really dropped that low? ApLundell (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was going to post a question on arm swing in human locomotion, but I found an article that answered my questions (is it learned, is it related to the gate of quadrupeds?) so I didn't. μηδείς (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We may want to lengthen the time before archiving, as it looks like our Q's have reduced (possibly as a result of all this AN/I attention). I, for one, had some Q's I could have asked but opted not to, because of all this. StuRat (talk) 04:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

May I join this Leper colony? Bus stop (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not? This looks like a meeting of everyone Macon has on his Enemies List. The entertainment desk is also getting a little thin. It happens. I also note a BLP-based removal from the huge manatees desk.[3] It wasn't removed by Medeis, so it probably won't be challenged. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, there's a question now. Thank goodness! ApLundell (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

That's what we need, a little bit of humor around here. We should start a new Reference desk by that name: the Huge manatee Reference desk. It can take the overflow capacity from the Miscellaneous Reference desk. (Wishful thinking.) Bus stop (talk) 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any original ideas. This[4] is where that came from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

In case anyone doesn't get the reference, that's a pic of the Hindenburg disaster with a huge manatee photoshopped in for the airship, and the quote changed to "Oh, the huge manatee !" from where a radio reporter actually yelled "Oh, the humanity !". StuRat (talk) 16:03, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, specifically Herb Morrison. He actually said, "Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers..." Presumably he was using the "humanity" to refer to the people on the ground waiting for the airship's arrival. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Vocabulary dot com says of "humanity" that it is "a word for the qualities that make us human, such as the ability to love and have compassion".[5] The announcer is reacting to his own mindfulness of the love and the compassion under assault and torn asunder by the disaster he is witnessing. Bus stop (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Notification of new !vote

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#StuRat.27s_Proposal. StuRat (talk) 22:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The ratio of refdesk-related noticeboard !votes to successfully answered refdesk questions is rapidly approaching parity. ApLundell (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Just as a quick note, for those confused by the strikeout of StuRat's comments, or the comments (until recently) on StuRat's talk page, note that per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Closure review request for "StuRat's behaviour on the Reference Desks (again)" [6] a topic was enacted but later reversed to allow more time for the new proposal to be discussed. Nil Einne (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

″:Arrg!

StuRat Thread : 185k. (Result : Topic-Block)

StuRat Appeal : 6k (Result : Success on appeal, but re-blocked with slightly broader block)

ArbCom Request : 32k (Pending : 0/7 against acceptance)

AN3 Thread : 6k (Result : Boomerang)

AN3 Appeal : 14k (Result : Success on appeal)

Village Pump Thread : 306k (Result : Chaos)

All Current RefDesks : 206k

Ok, I admit that last total is a bit disingenuous, because the desks are more aggressively archived than those other things, but the math is still infuriating.

If there's not going to be a RefDesk closure or reform, maybe some kind of awareness campaign to increase RefDesk utilization would at least tip the value/waste ratio into the black? ApLundell (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The new !vote has now ended the same way as the old !vote : A RefDesk ban for StuRat. ApLundell (talk) 04:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It takes some chutzpah for deletionists to start a plot to delete the Refdesk then blame the regulars because they out-trolled the Nazi troll and all the other trolls that supposedly infest our Refdesks, plus those of us who answer them seriously when possible, in the quest to generate useless non-encyclopedic content. But there's something about the box at the top of the page about "permanent closure" that tends to make folks waste their time trying to have a place to talk at least once for every time they come and think up an answer.

That said, sure, it would be great to get more folks interested in the Refdesk. It isn't interesting without questions to answer! Wnt (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing nefarious about shutting down (not "deleting") side-projects whose time has come and gone. It's normal. The RefDesk's trajectory is downwards, It's just a question of when it crosses the threshold where people are comfortable closing it.

Personally, I'd thought we'd passed that line. But the community is making it clear that we're close to the line, but haven't crossed it yet. So there's still time for some kind of positive action.

Imagining that we're beset by conspirators and plotters is not that positive action. It's just denial. ApLundell (talk) 01:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Why would you say that the reference desks' trajectory is downward? Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That argument is well articulated in the RfC. Agree or disagree, but don't ask people to re-articulate it (and presumably re-debate it) here. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The "trajectory" of the reference desks is the future of the reference desks. Few at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed? predict the future of the Reference desks. They point out what they see as problems with the reference desks. They advocate for the shutting down of the reference desks. But should you conflate advocating for the shutting down of the reference desks with predicting the imminent demise of the reference desks? Bus stop (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I haven't said anything about the number of editors who made the decline argument in the RfC. I merely said that it was made there, so there was no need to ask it to be repeated here by the same editor who made it in the RfC. Since you appear to lack a passing acquaintance with Ctrl+F, I'll helpfully do the legwork for you. The argument is here[7][8] and one support of it is here [9]. Now, if others want to re-debate that relatively minor point with you here, where such debate can have no effect, they are free to do so. Count me out. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being overly dramatic, perhaps I'm an old softie, but it seems as if StuRat has just been scapegoated for all the Refdesks' problems. The proposal to shut down the Refdesks didn't pass, but somehow, during that process, StuRat's name came up as the lightning rod for all that was wrong with the Refdesks, so if the Refdesks couldn't be shut down, at least this "worst offender" could be banned. So, hey, at least we did something.

And yet, other recent actions against other problematic contributors have all been closed without taking any action, suggesting that (in the consensus view of the wider WIkipedia) StuRat's behavior was far worse -- something that I'm just not seeing. Perhaps Wikipedia has evolved into something I no longer have anything in common with. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd be curious to see a list of what Wikipedia rules StuRat is alleged to have violated. Also, there does seem to be a vendetta, at least by some editors. For one, Legacypac (who has been edit-warring on the ref desks recently) has told more than one user, "maybe you should be next" to be banned from the ref desks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I partially agree. I didn't !vote in that discussion because I feel that, while StuRat's contributions are counter-productive more often than not, and his refusal to even understand this is infuriating, I see him as just a symptom of a greater problem.

I believe that the way the RefDesks are structured and administered encourages that kind of vapid contribution. Others will take his place. I'm sure of it.

Banning him wasn't wrong. But I don't think it'll accomplish much unless it's followed up with attempts to make the refdesk unwelcome for that kind of contribution. ApLundell (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

(Corollary : If there is some kind of RefDesk reform that adds structure and rules-clarity, it might make sense to provisionally unblock StuRat.) ApLundell (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

As StuRat's answers made mine look relatively on-topic and well-sourced, I'm banning myself from the desks till he's safely returned. It's solidarity, not an attempt to escape the new scrutiny. Before I go, I suggest at least one of you chain yourself to a tree and field questions from reporters (if you do it, they will come). InedibleHulk (talk) 19:06, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

Est-ce qu'on entend un écho de Je suis StuRat ? Blooteuth (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Tout le monde est rat! InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

archiving change

It's been noted that some of the desks have been getting rather empty. As such, there's no need to archive them as quickly; page size isn't as much of a problem these days.
Archiving used to kick in after 4-6 days, depending on the desk. For simplicity, I've just readjusted the archiver to a consistent interval of 7 days, for all desks. (As always, this is easily changed, whenever consensus dictates.) —Steve Summit (talk) 13:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good work. I was wondering if it's also worth considering consolidating the desks. So it wouldn't seem so slow.

ApLundell (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ironically, it was pretty much a single desk originally (if I'm remembering correctly) and was gradually expanded. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: operation WTF Renaissance

There has been a tremendous amount of bad energy affecting the Refdesks lately, and as pointed out above, the volume is way down at the moment. So let's strike a blow at all the Debbie Downers here and simultaneously try to make the Refdesk more valuable to Wikipedia...

1) Read a few articles on Wikipedia. I know you do anyway. 2) STOP when you feel a "WTF???" coming on. Don't just let it lie -- see if there is a real question an article raises that you want to know about. 3) Make a reasonable try to answer it (we don't want people saying "hey just search gooooogle"). 4) Post it. 5) If you get a decent answer, add the source to the article. 6) Repeat, ideally daily, until the Refdesks have recovered their pre-AfD volume.

Anyone up for this? I just tried my first one at the Science desk, about hammock (ecology)s in Namibia. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that I don't appreciate your positive attitude, and I certainly don't enjoy being one of the Debbie Downers, but I interpreted what I read from the long recent discussions at WP:ANI, WP:VPP etc differently:

If you want the reference desk to thrive and become a place where people actually want to ask questions and expect solid answers, the focus of change/improvement probably should be on the answers, not on the questions. Try to understand what the querent is seeking, keep it referenced and informed, and keep it friendly, don't belittle OPs and their questions (if you feel they're ridiculous, just don't respond), try not to speculate and guess in your answers, don't proselytize and soap-box, don't slip in your personal POV, etc. If we stick to certain principles, then we have a chance of turning this into a useful service, else I, too, think the refdesks have become obsolete and don't care whether they're abolished or not. As pointed out in discussions above, StuRat was an easily targeted warning-example, but the "community's patience" for keeping a reference desks won't increase if we continue as before (or as though StuRat was the crucial problem).

If we offer a good service, then we probably need not worry about traffic, but I don't believe in artificially perpetuating the desks (which is what your proposal looks like to me, even if that wasn't your intention). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• ^^^Mostly this^^^ --Jayron32 02:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref desk postings should be like bowel movements, natural, not forced. That being said, the WE ARE ABOUT TO DELETE THIS SHIT tag at the top of each desk does nothing other than scare people off. I suspect that is actually their real purpose, just as closing the StuRat threads with the comment "only people who oppose StuRat's banning support alternatives" and his being summarily blocked without any history of escalating blocks and warnings was meant to achieve a preconceived end. Let's have those tags removed. I post questions when they occur to me, I am not about to start making stuff up. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I moved the tag to this page. I guess it should be somewhere until that discussion is closed. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:47, 4 November 2017 (UTC) .... Oh crap, I did no such thing, only moved it from Wikipedia:Reference desk, but not from the individual desks where it must be transcluded, but I couldn't figure out immediately where to look, and am about to leave the keyboard. I support removing those tags from the six desks (but leaving one on this talk page until the discussion at the Village Pump has been closed). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I removed it from Wikipedia:Reference desk/header. It should disappear from the individual pages once the queue catches up. Deor (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• The trouble with not responding is that someone else will respond. This is in response to "if you feel they're ridiculous, just don't respond". I think the desks are necessarily conversational. It would be hard not to respond to someone in real life. If something seems ridiculous I think it's OK to brush them off with a dismissive comment. We are not required to be saints. We err when our responses are lengthy and ridiculous. Bus stop (talk) 14:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)