Wikipedia talk:Reference desk

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.

Where Do We Go from Here ?

Where do we go from here? The WP:ANI filing was archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive956#Problematic_behavior_by_User:Medeis_at_the_reference_desk The closing administrator, User:Neutrality, said: No consensus for any administrative action against Medeis or any other editor at this time. As several editors have noted, this discussion has strayed quite far from its original purpose. Many proposals regarding WP:RD have been advanced - from abolition to reform to minor tweaks - but it is apparent that these ideas are very preliminary, and exist only in very broad outlines. As Robert McClenon and Berean Hunter wisely pointed out, if the community believes that RD reform is necessary or desirable, then that is a discussion that should take place somewhere centralized and in orderly fashion. A well-written, clear, and specific, community-wide RfC, enumerating particular proposals (i.e., Option A, Option B, Option C), advertised at Template:Centralized discussion, is an good option. If an editor wants to pursue arbitration, they are free to so request, and it will be up to Arbcom to make the call. I note, however, that it would be needlessly confusing to have both a Request for Arbitration/Arb case and a community-wide RfC pending at the same time; I therefore advise against doing both simultaneously.

That leaves us with two options as to how to proceed. We can conduct a centralized discussion on Reference Desk reform, leading to a community-wide RFC. Alternatively, we can file a Request for Arbitration. We shouldn’t do both at the same time. So the question seems to me whether we, the Reference Desk sub-community, a portion of the Wikipedia community, are willing to try to let the Wikipedia community address the Reference Desk issues amicably first. I would suggest that we try discussion followed by an RFC (not just an arbitrary RFC that someone throws at the community), and expect that this process will take about 60 days, maybe 15 days to put together the right RFC or RFCs, followed by 30 days for the RFC to run, followed by 15 days to close the RFC (and to give anyone a chance to take the closure to WP:AN). If the process is disrupted, we can always punt by requesting Arbitration. As North American sports fans know, once you punt, it’s no longer your football. (However, the roles of receiving team and referee are combined in the ArbCom.)

Does anyone think that we should request Arbitration at this time, or is everyone willing to give centralized discussion a chance? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If by "the community" you mean "the same small cadre of pissy people with axes to grind as always" and by "reform" you mean "a vindictive sense of outsized retribution because of some minor wrong that those same people can't seem to get over" then yeah, that's right. You forget the third option which is "Do nothing, and go find some questions you can provide references to answer". I'd greatly favor the third option. Some people just want to watch the world burn. Instead of giving them kindling, just ignore them and carry on as we always have. --Jayron32 03:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Jayron32, for what might have been useful at WP:ANI, and, at this point, is just dumping on those who are also saying that the constant complainers should either put up or shut up. That comment might have been useful at WP:ANI, but at this time is just directed at those who are trying, perhaps pointlessly, to address the problem that exists because some people insist that there is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Jayron32, Assuming for the sake of argument that everything you wrote above is true, we still would have a problem to solve, which is the fact that many, many editors think that there is a real problem here, that more and more new editors who think that there is a problem here keep arriving here as the old ones give up, and that together this large crowd of editors keeps posting complaints here and occasionally at ANI. To solve that problem (again, assuming for the sake of argument that everything you wrote above is true), we need an RfC or arbcom case that tells everyone to quit complaining. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Word. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, In my experience Arbcom before centralized discussion tends to go very, very badly. Arbcom tends to fix things with a sledgehammer, and in one recent case voted to sanction an editor who has completely uninvolved and had never edited the page in question or interacted with any of those involved in the dispute.

What did he do that they thought deserved sanctions? He presented evidence in the form of diffs as an uninvolved editor that Arbcom didn't want to hear. Not being on the list of those officially involved in the dispute, There was no mention of him in the evidence phase, and he wasn't given a chance to respond before they voted to sanction him.

They finally relented after a large number of veteran editors complained, and even then some Arbcom members stuck to their guns, some changed their vote without explanation, and some changed their vote with an explanation that they really should have declared him involved in the dispute as soon as he posted his evidence and then sanctioned him.

Most Arbcom cases don't go quite that badly, but there is a strong tendency for Arbcom to punish everybody even in cases where one side misbehaved seriously and the other made only minor transgressions.

In my experience, ANI makes fairer and wiser decisions, but they have made it clear that they need an RfC or other centralized discussion to tell them what to enforce. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. Painful to see one drama spilling over into another. To keep this on track, I would like to clarify a bit on why I stated that an RfC would likely be necessary first. ArbCom are a last resort when other avenues have been exhausted. Cases are often rejected when it is realized that not enough effort or the wrong effort have gone into finding solutions. Robert is used to seeing cases go to ArbCom because of his fine work in the DR area. Cases that come from DR will have been viewed as having gone through multiple attempts at resolution and satisfying the prerequisite conditions for consideration. At the present, I believe they would see that there are steps missing here and the case would likely be rejected. An RfC would give them a good meter upon which to judge community wishes. I would recommend that you not conflate this drama with another that may only serve to confuse the unfamiliar. Using one example of a case to best the committee and nullify them as a route for possible resolution is like trying to say that a single court case gone bad nullifies the whole legal system.

Have you ever given consideration to setting up clerks here? That may be a solution. I can think of three areas where clerking is used to help maintain decorum and process. ArbCom and SPI which have specific clerks with defined duties as well as RfA where the bureaucrats serve as clerks. Without such clerking, things would get out of hand.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't see what the function of clerks would be or how they would help. Clerks are used in situations where there is clear authority, and the clerks do the clerical work for the functionaries. In ArbCom, SPI, and RFA there is clearly defined authority, and clerks do the prep work for the arbitrators, CheckUsers, or Bureaucrats. What would clerks do? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

One big question, of course, is: What's the big problem we're trying to solve here?

* There aren't enough good questions any more

* There are too many bad / opinion-seeking / debate-attracting / trolling questions

* There are too many jokey / bantering / speculative / unreferenced answers

* There are too many questions / answers that violate the no-medical-advice and other guidelines

* There's too much hatting and deletion of borderline questions / answers

I'm afraid there's not good consensus even on what the problem is, let alone what the solution(s) might be.

Me, I fear the root cause is that while the RD's once formed a pretty large, vibrant, relatively cohesive community, over time it has both shrunk and splintered, meaning that it's painfully hard to come to consensus on much of anything these days. —Steve Summit (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

We need to take serious the proverb that says that "too many captains will sink the ship". What often happens is that a system that is actually capable to do the job it is supposed to do, but due it's being micromanaged to much and then you get disputes that escalate. That's why I proposed sticking to 1RR when doing housekeeping tasks like hatting questions. And I think any revert of this nature should be accompanied by a posting on the talk page explaining the reasons why you reverted. After that you should recuse from any further action on that particular issue. But there are other solutions like Berean Hunter's suggestion of appointing clerks.

If this then doesn't work then that would pointsto there being a far more fundamental dispute between editors who are just not able to work together, and then you really need a forceful intervention. But it's best to separate such a dispute from trivial disputes that are an artifact of everyone playing the moderator at the same time before going to ArbCom, otherwise what Guy says will happen; everyone will get topic banned and this place will be shut down. Count Iblis (talk) 19:23, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "troll questions" are really a problem - you shouldn't really need to hear the bell ringing for the church service in order to have a steeplechase. If it's a question and you can think of an interesting way to answer it, answer it. The only problem here are people who think there's a problem here. Wnt (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, at this point it appears that maybe User:Jayron32 was right. There is a problem because some editors say that there is a problem, and that makes the problem, but maybe Jayron32 was right, and no one except the complainers wants to do anything, and all they want to do is complain. If so, maybe we know that the next time someone goes to WP:ANI, a boomerang should be thrown. Maybe there only is a problem for those who say that there is a problem. If no one proposes anything constructive, then maybe that is reason to infer that the real problem is non-constructive behavior. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Oh we all agree the problem is non-constructive behavior. We just can't agree on which behavior is most non-constructive! ApLundell (talk) 23:05, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Clerk Discussion

(Answering your question about clerks here) Clerks may:

• Regulate archiving
• Regulate hattings and removals
• Regulate formats and necessary refactoring to make sure nothing breaks. Add sigs/datestamps for archiving bots
• Regulate behavior by editors and show some the door if necessary

These are a few examples. You can peruse the SPI Clerk role and responsibilities and appropriate how that might be adapted here. If you can't imagine how a clerk might help then I would ask you to consider the catalyst for the recent turmoil. If hatting were left up to a clerk then there wouldn't have been an edit war over it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 11:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

After looking over the responsibilities of SPI Clerks, I am still confused as to how clerks would help in general, although I do have a guess as to how User:Berean Hunter may see it. SPI clerks, as I commented above, act as the gatekeepers for the CheckUsers. CheckUsers are highly trusted by the community. SPI clerks must be trusted by the CheckUsers and by the other clerks. SPI clerks are noted to have no special authority. I see that User:Berean Hunter is an admin clerk, and there are also non-admin clerks. My question is: Who would decide what editors can be trusted as clerks? If Berean Hunter is saying that part of the problem is that some editors have self-appointed themselves to act as the clerks, that is true, but who would unappoint the self-appointed clerks? It is true that the Reference Desks have a few admins who are active from time to time, including BereanHunter. Formalizing a role for a group of admins would help, if it were understood that those admins could issue blocks to any self-appointed clerks who engaged in questionable hatting. However, what is a questionable hatting? We don't have any rules on hatting. I see that BereanHunter says that clerks could "Regulate behavior by editors and show some the door if necessary". Only admins can show the door to trolls, to busybody self-appointed clerks, or to other difficult editors. I see that BereanHunter has made this proposal in good faith, but I think that they are making assumptions, as an admin clerk, about what clerks could do and how they could help. I can see that giving more responsibility to those editors who are admins would help, but I don't see any need for a designated clerk role, only for asking admins to use the mop heavily. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see a need for clerks, only for clarity. Most of the time I think we can do without enforcement. Administration is never pretty, whether we do it here, on AN/I, or in some clerk star chamber; it's possible that having some editors hatting and unhatting comments is as peaceful a resolution as we're going to get. Convincing the editors to tolerate a wide-ranging conversation is what I'd prioritize; no need for an entrenched bureaucracy, particularly not a substandard one. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I thought that the comment by User:Jayron32 was hostile and disparaging, and I still think so, but, seeing the lack of any constructive comments now, I conclude that his hostility was partly warranted. My conclusion is that, the next time anyone takes a Reference Desk dispute to WP:ANI, the appropriate response is simply a boomerang. Complainers about the Reference Desks, you had a chance to try to be constructive. You didn't act. Those of you who make a big stink about hattings are only a little better than those who do the hattings that cause the stink. User:Guy Macon is right that editors should stop trying to control other editors, but those who want something done about controlling behavior seem to want only attention or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Signal-to-noise

On the present WP:RD/H#Masha Gessen gay marriage query, I'd appreciate some guidance here: are the comments at 07:14 and 11:34 today - minimized in type size though they be - wholly acceptable to the purpose and spirit of the Ref desks? Having read the above discussions (Where do we go from here? and Vibrancy), and being often enough on either side of the footlights - with my queries focused on editing Wikipedia content - I'm not so tolerant of what I consider outright noise. The subject of Masha Gessen's professional credentials and positions, inasmuch as they possibly overshadow her "views on gay marriage" is complex enough that those who edit might show some concern toward the quality of that article's citations and possible POV. Oh, and here at 15:11 another comment that actually refers to the subject., but in my experience belongs on Talk:Masha Gessen and I'm about to mention that. My contention is that noise unrelated to the issue at hand is out of place on the RDs. As we often respond to inappropriate queries - go find yourself some social media forum to display your self-styled wit, there are plenty of them on the Interwebs. -- Deborahjay (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You can take the additional step of boxing it up, if you like, but outright removal seems inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The OP was the same one that asked about Hitler banning fox hunting. Wondering if it's the Nazi troll taking a different tack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Is there a how-to page on that, including how to document the action (e.g. standard heading, Edit summary sufficient to explain...)?

"How to" lesson for hatting. StuRat (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
How's this ? Go into edit mode to see the syntax needed.

Why does it seem inappropriate to you? I'm wholly in favour of deleting irrelevant comments such as the ones highlighted here. --Viennese Waltz 16:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

A talk page such as the Ref Desk does not allow you to just delete comments that you find to be irrelevant. There is good reason for this. People will disagree on what is relevant. For example, some of the comments in question seem to be pointing out, in a flippant way, that whether the person themself has been in a gay marriage does not automatically reveal their position on gay marriage. Also, how would you like it if somebody declares your comments to be irrelevant and deletes them ? This practice would lead to anger, edit wars, and drama we don't need. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I use a simple rule of thumb to identify irrelevant comments. They're the ones signed by Sturat and Baseball Bugs. --Viennese Waltz 17:00, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to add yourself to that list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You've just demonstrated the problem nicely. You've prejudged ALL contributions by two people to be deserving of deletion, without even reading them. This shows that you lack the judgement to be entrusted with such decisions. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Or it could just be that British rye sense of humor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

"That hammy answer goes against the grain," he said wryly, but he was only chaffing. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.217.208.38 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

That's corny. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

In WP:RD/H#Any historians of American presidents here?, at a suitable position and indentation below this comment by Baseball Bugs:

The start of Lincoln's presidency was marred by the entire south seceding from the union. I don't think anything like that has happened before or since.

Please add:

Sorry, they started seceding before Lincoln was president. Remember, inauguration day used to be in March. Admittedly it happened because be was elected, but it still doesn't count as an event during his first months in office. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Done Nil Einne (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --76.71.5.114 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Asking a question and now Refdesk is semiprotected

I was reverting MarnetteD who was constantly deleting my question, saying that it's trolling, and now the humanities Refdesk is semiprotected. Why? Is it because I'm not allowed to ask questions? My question was why there are so many gay pride parades but no straight pride parades. What's wrong the question?24.130.68.155 (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Your premise is false. See Straight pride. General Ization ^Talk 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

That's a decent answer. So why didn't we give that answer in the first place, not delete the question as "trolling", not semi-protect the Refdesk for "sock puppetry?" I mean, I have no idea if this is a sock puppet and frankly I don't need to for this argument -- if we're going to answer questions ... why not do it on the Refdesk? Just seems like sensible design! And as usual I see more disruption from the enforcement than the "trolls". Wnt (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's typical of one type of question the Nazi ref desk troll would ask. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD deleted the post. So, I went to the user's Talk Page to talk about the deletion. I told the user that I could have posted this as a reply: "Homosexuals are often stigmatized and shamed by society for being homosexuals. Homosexuals tend to feel an overwhelming sense of guilt for a harmless behavior. Given that there is no scientific or medical support for the harmfulness of homosexuality, homosexuals feel they should be exonerated from this guilt and be accepted by society. Acceptance is an universal human trait, because humans are very social. Social isolation is tantamount to torture, and humans feel that they do not deserve torture for a harmless thing. Heterosexuals do not experience shame for heterosexuality. Most of the time, heterosexuality is the expected and enforced norm." But the user just deleted that and told me in the little Edit Summary that I shouldn't reply to the troll or the other troll. That said, the Reference Desk post does seem a bit troll-ish, because no one should have to explain the central characteristic of human nature. It is always assumed that all humans understand human nature tacitly. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

With these edits, which I reverted, the OP was confirmed to be a troll. General Ization ^Talk 03:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The first question seems legitimate. One challenge in public health is trying to be more open and friendly to non-heterosexuals in a heterosexist, homophobic environment. The second question sounds like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I was assuming good faith and composing a reply to the first followup question when the OP posted the second, making their true intent clear. Based on behavioral evidence, the OP is a well-known troll here.General Ization ^Talk 03:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:RBI is the standard practice, especially when dealing with Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Ref Desk Antisemitic Troll. IMO it is a shame that "it" is being fed here. MarnetteD|Talk 04:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

As General's links show, the troll very soon reveals his true agenda. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The Refdesk requires ignorance; without that, it would have no purpose at all. If Nazi or anti-Semitic or anti-gay posters are driven to ask us questions, even if they are pointed, then this is part of the world trying to purge itself by a normal healing process: the ignorant come to us with their ignorance and we have an opportunity to answer it. If we do so simply and honestly, we will either put the troll to rout because he is afraid to think about what we say, or we will convert him. Meanwhile, in making such answers we build up a database of responses that might productively be used by those facing discriminatory gibes or needing additional confidence. There are situations we know nothing about, where a lone victim cannot block the troll for some reason, and we should have confidence that straightforward responses by us now will eventually work their way out to that system. Wnt (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

If you succeed in enlightening the Nazi troll, get back to us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Who makes the rules here?

So, does a user get to unilaterally make up their own rules, because he thinks some answers are "interesting", even if they contravene our policies and guidelines? I refer to "Is it certain that 1 WTC would have collapsed by the plane crash?", a question on Humanities.

I hatted the first 8 responses (from 6 different users) because they contained opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate – but not one link to any external source. Zero.

After that there was a post containing 2 references.

Then the OP comes along and unhats what I'd previously hatted: "I appreciate that you care about people sticking to the topic - but these arguments are interesting in their own right, and still, they are the context of the answer citing a source".

Well, yes, lots of things we see around us are "interesting". But so what? Saying these unreferenced posts are acceptable because they are interesting is tantamount to saying debate is perfectly OK here. Isn't it?

As for "they are the context of the answer citing a source", I don't get that at all, sorry. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

See WP:IAR and WP:DNFTT. I tend to think that it's not worth trying to contain edits unless they are directly disruptive (as e.g. those by our resident Nazi troll). The fallout is usually worse than the inconvenience of the original problem, and the interpretation on what is acceptable and what not differ too widely. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a reference desk, not a discussion forum. That's what it's called, at least. If we want a forum, we should change the name after getting community consensus for the mission change. Jack is correct, although tilting at a windmill. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

A rather quixotic remark, if I may so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:KnightMove. Sorry for overlooking the OP. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:36, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@JackofOz: The idea of the Refdesk is to get to references, but it isn't really necessary for responders to get there in one go. I made a brief comment about the floors in order to illustrate the concept, based on the pancake explanation, which has been very widely reported in American press; while it would have been better to source it, I was trusting someone with intimate familiarity would come along shortly and explain in better technical detail. This in fact did happen - you see that the post you approve of made a response that the pancake theory had been debunked. Now you can say that's some kind of offense, that any kind of idle talk is a crime against .... well, a crime against what, exactly? We were thinking about the question. Wnt (talk) 03:04, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

The rules do not demand that all answers must provide sources, only that "Editors should strive to accurately and fairly represent significant views published by reliable sources." Anyone might have a look and judge whether the contributions hatted by JackofOz (see here) have violated that rule. I think they have not, even less all of them, so taking action was at least unnecessary. --KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Questions that are such fodder for trolls and demand WP:AGF should put us on our best behavior. The replies are not our best behavior. The fact that OP is a long-term user in good standing who seems to acknowledge the potential for abuse is a mitigating factor in the eyes of many (though I still espouse that IPs are WP:HUMAN). Anyway, ending all the set up, the OP posts an entirely appropriate question for the ref desk: Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?

Unfortunately, nobody seems to have really tried to field the only appropriate part. Unsourced opinion is never ideal here, and it is especially bad for this kind of (potentially, inadvertently) troll-baiting question. In my estimation 209...'s response is fine, because it's ultimately seeking clarification and critiquing the associated image, not offering much in the way of speculation or WP:OR. Wnt's response at least contains some reference. I do think Wnt has a good point about incremental responses being occasionally useful, even if they don't contain references. In this specific case, however, none of it seems especially useful. Every other (current) responder deserves at least a WP:TROUTing in my book, because it's basically fan chatter and arm-chair analysis. Ultimately, the reference desk is for seeking and providing references, but all I can manage to do is try to act like a pro about it myself, and maybe toss out the occasional trouting.

Finally, as you know, the rules are ultimately upheld by the fickleness of the crowd and by people who like to boss people around and by people who just want this to be a nice place and also whoever the hell is awake and reading at the moment. It's crappy system, but still one of the best out there :) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

See, I liken this to a RL library where there's a reference desk staffed by, say, 10 people. A user goes up to the desk to seek information on a certain topic. What he probably expects is either the names of some relevant books/sources, or at least a pointer to the relevant section of the library. What he gets, in this case, is a round-desk discussion among the staffers in which their private opinions and theories are bandied about, but no actual advice is given to the user as to where to go to find what they came to the desk for in the first place. Would any of us walk away feeling satisfied with such an experience? Would we be inclined to go back to that desk with other queries? I certainly would not. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

But note the alternative of all 10 staffers cooly turning their back and ignoring the question - would that be better? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

How is that a relevant analogy? We don't "coolly turn our backs" and ignore OP's questions. No, what happens, ideally, is that anyone who can supply a reference does so pretty quickly, and others simply remain silent (if only ....). In the unlikely event that nobody has enough interest to be bothered getting involved, or enough smarts to be able to provide a reference, someone usually pipes up and asks a clarifying question. Remember, we do tell OPs that an answer may take a few days, so they should not expect instant responses. If you think that silence for a day or so would be interpreted as us "coolly ignoring" the OP, then I suggest you're shouldering too much emotional responsibility for the presumed feelings of anonymous people on the internet. There's probably a term for that. I hope it's not contagious. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

At a physical reference desk with a staff, the questioner would have face-to-face interaction. Here, it's like if the guy asks a question and then immediately bolts, possibly in the library, possibly out on the street, possibly to never return. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what you're talking about? How is this type of occasional OP behaviour relevant to this topic? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're trying to compare an electronic ref desk with a physical ref desk. And I'm saying that comparison doesn't work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Jack's point, with which I agree, is that the comparison doesn't work in respect of the respondents, not in respect of the questioners. --Viennese Waltz 12:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't work with regard to the questioners, either. The fundamental difference is the lack of face-to-face interaction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, I agree, and what I'm saying is that these folks have largely acted unprofessionally, hence the trouting. Unfortunately we can't really stop them, and we also can't force anyone to actually do a good job of it. If this were anything else I'd go finds some refs just to make a WP:POINT, but I have a severe allergy to reading materials on this topic. Perhaps your hatting would have stayed in place if it were not hat, but a simple collapse, like so:

Discussion without references for those interested, please post references below.
Comment A More bullshit That's a good point No it isn't you don't know anything If only there were a way to find out where I can read more, possibly in a reliable source!

I have had some mild success with that in the past. People don't like being told "no" or "you can't do that", but they are often ok with "let's put this material off to the side so it doesn't get in the way of good reference work." - your mileage may vary :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SemanticMantis (talk • contribs) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The analogy that the reference desk is like a library reference desk is fundamentally wrong. I'd liken it more to a room at a university where students hang out between classes. Someone walks in and asks "Anyone know anything about XYZ"? People who have knowledge or interest in the subject have a discussion. People walk in or rush off to class at various times. (In a library if you don't like how the librarian is working you complain and they stop getting paid. No one here gets paid in the first place.) RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT the "anyone know anything?" desk. it is still a reference desk. Your drop-in-drop out point is apt, but our explicit goal is to provide references, not act like self-appointed experts. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, questions which are unanswerable or vaguely worded should be ignored. Realistically, people want to help. So they engage in discussion to try to figure out what the questioner wants or needs to know, whether references exist or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it's necessary to ask questions to get to the real question. But in this case the question was quite clear, yet the 1st respondent started out with "I am obviously not an expert, but the collapse of 1 seemed to come from the collapse of the floors above the impact site ...". This was just a personal observation. The next 7 responses just added more opinion, observation, thoughts. Nothing remotely resembling an attempt to answer the question posed, which was "Has this question seriously been discussed, and possibly answered?". Those who contributed their own opinions may well consider them to be in the realm of the "serious discussion" the OP was after. And the OP did say they were "interesting". But my point remains: they talked around the general topic without ever addressing the actual question, or even trying to.

It cannot possibly be the case that people come here primarily to find out what the anonymous respondents think (interesting and all as their thoughts sometimes may be). They come here to find out what published reputable sources have to say. Why are people so unwilling to do that basic work of looking up the references the OPs are after - which is after all why we're supposedly hanging around the reference desk in the first place - yet equally willing to pipe in with their own opinions, as if they counted for something? Is it an ego thing, where they think that whatever they have to say on any given topic has greater authority and merit than any published sources? They may well think that, but on the other hand, how highly would they regard anyone who would blithely accept the opinion of any old anonymous jerk on the internet? Not very, I suspect. So they're actually in the business of feeding people they consider idiots. I hope their mothers are proud of the great heights to which their paths in life have brought them. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out some specifics of the current case:

• It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses of the WTC collapses - as required by the rules.
• Unsurprisingly, in the USA there is much more material on the collapses published and consumed, and I did learn a lot from these answers.
• None of the answers was destructive or 'trolling' in any way. Any disruption was far off.
• The non-sourced answers led to a sourced answer, as should be the case for a discussion.
• Some of the most active reference desk contributors were among the hatted posters, esp. StuRat. If conclude they did misbehave, it might seem advisable to either clarify or modify the rules.

--KnightMove (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

How was it obvious (point 1)? If they were just repeating stuff you already knew to be true, then that's hardly an advance in your knowledge. If they were saying stuff you did NOT know, what led you to believe them, and why would you prefer the personal testimony of a ref desk respondent over a link to a published source? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I have many, many times, begged and pleaded with StuRat to stop posting whatever pops in to his head. I'm not alone, several others have too. Sometimes I think we should start a support group. But it never works. I've mostly given up. More recently, I've noted a slight improvement in his (quality referenced post)/(unsourced opinion)/ ratio, but it is still far less than one, and he is still far from a ref-desk role model. For a guidance or role models on ref-desk behavior, look to Nimur, Jayron, BenRG, Nil Einne, Nyttend, Steve Summit, AlanSplodge, and many more. Jack himself does pretty good work here too. But your comment brings up a good point: since Stu is so active and so often engages in bad behavior, it does give the impression that this is ok. I don't want this to turn in to yet another thing about Stu, but since you bring up his behavior and activity as evidence of the acceptability of said activity, I had to correct that mistaken notion: just because Stu makes a lot of bad posts doesn't mean it's ok. This specific instance is not terrible in my book, but I'd also have recommended leaving all the unsourced material in a collapsed section like the one I used above. The notion of "It was fairly obvious that the opinions of the posters don't come out of nowhere, but are rooted in published analyses" is completely off base for a reference desk. If they have analyses, they should post them. This is not an expert desk, nor is it a "trust me I've read stuff" desk. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Also disturbing is when other editors yell at StuRat (or whoever) and tell him he's wrong about something which he might actually have right, or at least partially right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

That utterly misses the point, as I think you know. This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right. It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published. Big difference. Huge. Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below), but often all we see is the variations, with nary even a suspicion of the theme. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The attackers, too often, fail to provide their own references to refute the original comment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a mistake to say that every response needs a reference. Here are some exceptions I can think of:

1) Request for clarification of the Q.

2) Pointing out that the Q may be taken more than one way.

3) Pointing out answers which others have already given (like "You might have missed that the 3rd response from X included a link which shows...").

4) Calculations. Common on the Math Desk, but sometimes also on the Science Desk, Computer Desks, etc. (Something like a simple conversion from metric to US units doesn't really require a ref, unless there's an argument over it.)

5) Saying why an answer is not possible.

6) Reformatting (like boxing up large chunks of code).

7) Suggesting a method for finding the answer.

Another one I don't much support is responses that do nothing more than criticize the responses of others. That doesn't belong on the Ref Desk. Take it here or to their talk page instead. (Saying that a response in incorrect is OK, with evidence, but insulting people is not.)

Also, Jack, note that most your recent responses (since you posted this complaint) on the Ref Desk don't include refs either: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Now that doesn't mean those were bad posts, but neither does it mean so when others do the same. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Those are the 5 dumbest NON-refutations I've ever seen, Stu. A complete waste of your time, defending the indefensible by attacking the upholder of the rules. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

You seem to have been saying that every Ref Desk post requires a ref, and that's clearly not the case, as I just described. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that's not what I've ever said. In fact, just up above I said: This desk is not for respondents to say things that are right. It's for respondents to provide links to things that are published. Big difference. Huge. Now, OK, sometimes we can diverge from that core principle (as StuRat notes below) .... -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

So you're saying my position is "indefensible" whilst simultaneously saying you agree with what I said ? Huh ? StuRat (talk) 03:29, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Let me make it clear. I have no issue with any of the 7 things you listed. But these are not pertinent to my topic, which is that a range of people provided "opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, debate", but nothing remotely like any source. I note that you didn't mention opinion, speculation, hypothesis, argument, or debate in your list of exceptions. Nor should you have. I take it you accept that these things are not welcome on the reference desks. Yet you were one of the users engaging in such behaviour in the thread in question. Care to explain? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

It makes no sense that someone is allowed to make a claim with evidence but you require evidence for a challenge of that claim. Yes evidence makes for a better challenge but sometimes comments are so stupid there's little point looking for the evidence. Of course simply questioning something which was claimed but without evidence, without saying it's definitely wrong, shouldn't require evidence either. Nil Einne (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

If someone attack's another's comments as being incorrect, without providing refuting evidence, then the attacker is just as guilty as the one they're attacking. In lieu of refuting evidence, the right response is not "That's so stupid." The right response is "What's your source for that?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. As for Nil's comment, a statement of fact doesn't always need proof, until somebody challenges it. If I claimed that the Sun set at 09:12 PM (EDT) in Detroit today, without proof, that's OK. However, if somebody challenges the truth of that claim, then they should provide their proof I am wrong, and ask me to provide my proof. In this way we could find out why there's a diff in our sources, such as one rounding the minutes up and the other rounding them down. Simply saying "You're wrong !" does not help to resolve the discrepancy, and doesn't even identify what the discrepancy is. And saying something like "You're a moron if you believe that !" is even less helpful. Civility should be our highest goal. StuRat (talk) 01:36, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Death_Penalty_In_1930s.2C_For_Out_of_State_Resident.3F for an example of the proper way to disagree. There was a question over whether US state governors had the right to refuse an extradition request from another US state in the 1930s, yet we were able to disagree and discuss this question civilly, without resorting to calling each other names. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

As I understand it, if in an article someone writes that the time of sunset on 21 June 2017 in Detroit was 21:12 EDT any person can tag it . They don't have to suggest or provide evidence that it is wrong. One consideration is that the sunset time varies according to where in Detroit you happen to be. That's what Stu says in the first part of his answer. On the reference desk, it's helpful, if someone believes a statement to be wrong, to say why they think it's wrong. It's not obligatory, however.

Again, someone commented that in London different classes live cheek by jowel. If the observation is supported by the fact that the informant lives there, and is speaking from personal observation, I don't see that whether the information has or has not been published derogates from it. 94.195.147.35 (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2017 (UTC)