Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Archive 78

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

Archive 78

Archive 79

Archive 80

→

Archive 85

Geography and History

I think Geography and History should get reference desks. Us441(talk)(contribs) 11:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason why the Science and Humanities desks aren't good enough for Geography and History questions? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So you want to create a reference desk. First, be aware of precedent. The former article is somewhat lacking; in addition to the many many proposals for a History desk, there have been several proposals for a Geography desk. Second, explain why the current structure is insufficient, as 82.x touches on. Are there too many questions of a given type such that a current desk is overloaded? Are questions unanswered because they go to the wrong place? Note that "wrong place" by itself isn't that big a deal: it's one thing if geography questions go unanswered at Misc; it's quite another if they're answered regularly. — Lomn 12:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The only compelling reason to create new desks is if the current desks are overtaxed. Generally, I don't think they are. The science desk gets a bit large from time to time, but not unmanagably so. The other desks range from 6-7 questions per day for most of the others, down to 2-3 per day for the Entertainment desk. I don't see that there is any reason to create more desks. --Jayron32 04:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The objective of Us441 and other like-minded Users would probably be satisfied if the Humanities Desk carried a statement confirming that questions about history and geography are welcome. Similarly, the Science Desk might also carry a statement confirming that questions about geography are welcome. Dolphin (t) 06:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The problem is that there are millions of possible subjects which could be asked, and generally we answer good-faith questions wherever they show up, unless it is grossly misplaced. We don't argue about whether a question of psychology belongs in, say, either Science or Humanities, we just answer it. I don't think we need to pre-determine which possible subjects a question could be on and make sure that every reference desk lists every possible subject it would handle. --Jayron32 06:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Archie vs. Osho

Even after I archived it with no-more-editing thing, someone made an edit This is regrettable  Jon Ascton  (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The "archiving" thing is not legally binding. Anyway, it seemed important to me to point out something that had for some reason not been mentioned yet, even though it seemed rather important to making sense of the question (and hey, I even provided a citation!). It's hard for me to see the harm done, but if it bothers you so much, feel free to delete it. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

C'mon man, deleting your enlightening Hare-Krishna thing is out of question. In fact you have started me to rethink about the whole matter. But I have other fears - if someone else starts soapboxing or turning it to casual chitchat, the question which I think was fit would start looking like "pointless questions...starting to get salacious". And I will be the culprit. I hope you understand what I am saying... Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The archiving thing should only be used rarely, and even when a thread has been archived or marked as resolved, it won't stop me from adding information, if I feel it is relevant to the question. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that "archiving" thing is not legally binding. But that is a big problem for me then. Anyone will add anything, and turn the whole thing shitty and that would add to my blacklist of another problem questions  Jon Ascton  (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving a thread is more of a recommendation than a rule. Sometimes someone will have one more thing that needs to be said, which is fine so long as it doesn't continue on into an endless debate. --Ludwigs2 16:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unless you choose to participate further, it's unlikely anyone will blame you for whatever problems develop in the thread afterwards Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying ! You are censoring me from participating further in a question I begun, and as if that is not enough - "it's unlikely anyone will blame you" a very subtle threat again that anyone else's malice can be blamed upon me !!!!! Isn't it time to stop this psychological warfare against me ?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 03:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Jon: he's just saying that how others respond to your question is up to them, it's not your responsibility and you will not be "blamed" for those responses. The truth is, though, some of your questions have provoked some very lengthy and at times contentious discussion on RD pages. Sometimes people -- "trolls" -- try to do that sort of thing on purpose, just to cause mayhem and confusion for the fun of it. I do not, right now, think you have done that on purpose (in the same way a "troll" would). Still: try to phrase your questions so that they are as precise and direct as possible, so that they are fully appropriate (in letter and spirit) for the RD desk, and about things that you genuinely would like to understand better in a way that you think other RD editors can help you with. Then: ask away! Your questions are clearly very popular here!

No one is waging "psychological warfare" against you (at least not beyond a "normal" amount of that for random WP interactions;). Relax. Say ॐ. It's okay. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As WikiDao has said, no one is censoring you from participating further. The fact that you have archived the thread indicates you don't want to participate further. You cannot however dictate that others cannot participate further. If you choose to participate, you cannot blame others for addresing any problems you cause, just as they will address any problems anyone else causes. The fact that you've closed the thread and then others responded may get some consideration but ultimately since no one is holding a gun to your head people aren't going to completely ignore any problems you may cause in the future simply because you tried to withdraw at one time.

It's important to note BTW that it's well accepted that while we should concentrate on an OPs question and keep responses on topic, they don't own it and discussions are for the benefit of everyone including people who made read the actual archives in the future. In particular, an OP cannot simply remove responses they don't like, nor can they decide when a thread is closed. If other people want to continue to participate, provided it is on topic and in accordance to RD guidelines and wikipedia rules, they are entitled to do so. If want a place where you 'own' any topics you started, the RD (and wikipedia in general) isn't it.

My Lord God ! When will you understand me ? Who the hell wants to 'own' any topics he started or RD or WP ? How can you even think like that ? Do I look that idiot ? If I want to own "any topics you started, the RD (and wikipedia in general)" then the only place fit for me is a madhouse. Do you think I closed the thread 'cause I wanted to dominate ? My Goodness. If only I could tell you with what enthusiasm I asked the Archie vs. Osho question, how desperate I was to know the answers you guys gave, and how thankful am I to learn all that I have learned here ! Do you think I could have got the answers you guys gave me anywhere else in the world ? Maybe all my life I could not have learned the fact that Archie was actually Christian ! Heavens know how yearning I still I am to learn more about this topic (especially after Mr.98's Hare Krishna tip ) Just when the thing was on the climax I was forced to archive it out of fear. Why ? just because I was scared that a little soapboxing from somewhere here or there or even a mistake from myself, will bring thunder down on me. Here is a guy just trying to protect his small ass , man... Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of people who show ownership issues on wikipedia, including on the RD. I didn't really think that you were showing ownership issues, but I thought it important to point out the norms of wikipedia since you are apparently unfamiliar with them. I also don't understand your point about a madhouse. There are plenty of forums and other places where a topic starter's request to close a thread will usually be granted or where the topic starter is entitled to delete or remove replies at their discretion. It's nothing to do with dominating (well usually), but all to do with the norms and rules of whatever place your visiting. As me and others have said, if you feel the need to close threads because your afraid and feel the need to protect your 'small ass' you've missed the point of the criticism you've received which I do find rather unfortunate. Nil Einne (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I have not missed the point of criticism, which was indeed quite creative and helpful to me in learning. As for the "madhouse" remark, I merely meant to say that I am a staunch defender of free speech. But sorry for the "small ass" remark, if you found in offensive. Apologies. Cheers  Jon Ascton  (talk) 05:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that unlike with some other archives, on the RD it is acceptable to edit the archives in the future adding further responses or clarifying issues that have arisen. In fact I've done it with 2 years old or so discussions on a few occasions. If there is something which you'd appreciate more widespread discussion, it would generally be wise to start a fresh question and sometimes it may be wise to inform people who you feel may wish to participate further, but otherwise it's generally accepted there's no harm.

I have no idea what you mean by 'a subtle threat'. My point was that it is unlikely anyone will blame you for things you aren't the cause of, since you seemed to be concerned that somehow you were going to be blamed for further problems in that thread arose after your participating and which you therefore didn't cause. However I'm not some sort of god, who knows precisely what everyone will do in the future. If someone does blame you for things you didn't do, they will IMHO almost definitely be shot down quite quickly here, however I cannot guarantee no one is going to do it anymore then I can guarantee there isn't going to be a nuclear war tomorrow that will kill both of us. As I think many people here can attest, I usually avoid absolutes in my comments, precisely because an absolute is IMHO a sure way to be wrong.

I would also note that occasionally people may notice problems they didn't notice earlier because of further scrutiny from later disputes. In other words, while people are not responsible for what they didn't do, they are responsible for what they did do even if people only notice it after they've already withdrawn and because of unrelated reasons. I don't see that this is likely here, but it is an important point nevertheless IMHO and another reason I tried to be careful in my phrasing.

Finally as Wikidao has also said, if you think people are waging 'psychological warfare' you're reading way, way too much in to fairly normal disputes that arise on wikipedia about user conduct and other related issues. Just take on board any meaningful criticism of your behaviour that has been offered, try to improve and don't get too worked up about disputes. Note that being able to deal with disputes and learn from your mistakes is an important part of colloborating on wikipedia.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think what Jon is worried about is that in the recent past he has been criticized for starting threads that basically devolved instantly into chit-chatting and non-RD worthy patter. He's be held somewhat responsible for that because the questions one asks do in part determine the answers you get. I'm sympathetic to his concern that he could get blamed for the actions of others in this sense, perhaps because he feels that his original questions that got him criticized were in fact asked in good faith. I think my only advice would be that Jon should just concentrate on making sure his own contributions are good, and that if he does, that attempt will come through, and people at the very least will see any mistakes as misunderstandings rather than something more malicious. --Mr.98 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I get why Jon is worried about being criticized for comments by others in threads he starts -- that would be lousy for anybody. However, I'm confident that we're all smart enough to draw that distinction. However, when I noted in a previous topic that Jon has had his good faith questioned, that had nothing to do with responses by others. That concern is specifically with regards to the topics he's brought to the RD (note: already linked above in this thread, just making it clear). — Lomn 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, when I had my good faith questioned that had nothing to do with responses by others, but NOW malice or mistake by others can be a danger to me rather than those who do it, that's what I meant... Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried in our being able to spot the distinction. I'm more worried about how to explain it to Jon in terms other than "be mature," which isn't very descriptive. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, 98, I think I have come of age ! Jon Ascton  (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal from RD/S

I removed, in this edit what I saw as a poorly-formed question, with a request that replies go to a private email rather than the RD. Seemed best to just remove, but I won't be offended by a revert. -- Scray (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the removal, but I won't revert you. You should, however, notify the poster that you've removed his question. I have done so at User talk:123.49.20.138. Buddy431 (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding a section title and providing a link to the Area 51 article would have been better than removal 82.44.55.25 (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As a member of the cabal to suppress discussion of Area 51 (where nothing strange is happening, I assure you), I approve of this removal. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hat removed

Someone put a {{hat}} on the "Acceptance of pedophilia" section on the Humanities desk, with a note worrying that the thread might turn ugly. I just removed the hat. There is no reason to remove or collapse Reference Desk threads just because they are about uncomfortable subjects. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not a question that can actually be answered with any real certainty. And it is the sort of discussion, as indicated by someone in the thread who suggested that it be closed, that can and will very easily veer into deeply unpleasant areas. But mostly it's just that the only answers that can be given are opinions, unless one wants to quote such sickening organizations as NAMBLA. → ROUX ₪ 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and per Arbcom anything that even smacks of supporting/advocating pedophilia is to be removed and the user(s) in question blocked, which means that only one opinion could even be given. → ROUX ₪ 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I wondered aloud whether it should be closed after Jayron and I gave a couple of initial responses. Roux then hatted it. Mr. 98 then pointed out that WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies. I'm certainly not a big fan of censorship, but the question has been answered and policy has been cited as to why it should not be answered any further. I'm for re-hatting it. I mean things get "ugly" around here over Ramen...! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

yes please remove the question it is disgusting. wikipedia should not be making pedophiles feel good about themselves that maybe in the future it will be accepted. pedophilia is illegal and immoral and that question in nothing but jerk spot for closeted pedophiles to preach their warped opinions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.227.177 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Bigger picture: Murder is pretty damn distasteful too, not to mention immoral and illegal, and life-ending - yet we don't seem to have a problem discussing that. We're even happy to give out ways of committing suicide, which for all we know may be used to kill someone else.

Things getting ugly: We shouldn't be heading discussions off at the pass just because they might get ugly. If it's staying civil, however repulsive the subject matter might be, then clearly editors seem to want to be involved in a discussion, and why should they be prevented from doing so?

Hatting and unhatting: If literally anyone can close a discussion, but literally anyone can re-open it, what's it all about? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jack of Oz's statements above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I re-boxed it. Anyone (at this point) can un-re-box it if they want, anyone can put more comments in the box if they want. But I think WP:NOTCRYSTAL is sufficient reason for "hatting" in this case. Again, I am generally very much for free and open communication. I did, after all, make two comments in response to this myself. I should perhaps have just removed it per NOTCRYSTAL, and I suspect it is verging very close to the ArbCom business mentioned by Roux, too. Things can get removed or boxed etc. for far less reason than those mentioned so far here, from what I can tell. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A thread advocating that in the future pedophilia will be just as acceptable as mixed race marriage is way beyond "distasteful". And it's not just the editors who participate in the thread that are affect by this. By loading the Humanities desk I and everyone else who loads the page downloads pedophilia propaganda onto their computer. In many parts of the world that is illegal and could cause real world problems and ruin lives. 88.183.89.68 (talk) 20:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with that sentiment. Homosexuality is illegal in many parts of the world. Using electronic encryption is illegal in many parts of the world. We don't refuse to answer questions because someone, in some jurisdiction, might run afoul of the law. This particular question is appropriately boxed up because it requires speculation, and there's not much room for references to be given. When I asked a question about this topic in April [1] it was left up. There was a considerable amount of unreferenced opinion and moral panic, but there were also some good references to social norms, and the such. No topic, including pedophilia, is out of bounds here. Buddy431 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say paedophilia is completely out of bounds but as somewhat mentioned above by Roux, considering Wikipedia:Child protection and User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 61#Zero-tolerance policy towards pedophilia and see some other discussions in that same page and all the related drama in various other places, it's clear the foundation, JW and arbcom take this very seriously so people do have to be very careful on what they say when it comes to paedophilia. (And this is thorough all WMF projects.) So it's the sort of thing where we have to tread very carefully and therefore probably best avoided altogether. On a personal level, I probably wouldn't delete such questions unless they're completely outrageous or clearly against policy but I probably wouldn't oppose their deletion and definitely am not likely to participate in most questions. Nil Einne (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at length about the policy, which is a clear deviation from and imposition against Wikipedia mores — and not just because it excludes the minority pedophile viewpoint, but more importantly because it includes a "pedophile protection" paragraph prohibiting open discussion of allegations against individuals and bypassing the usual administrative process. And pedophile acceptance is not just a hypothetical issue or a future prediction, but a very significant part of Islam, which was founded by a pedophile (see Aisha). Given the very real cultural divides that exist, frank and presumably heated discussion of the topic is not only expected, but the only way toward international understanding. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt: Islam has nothing to do with pedophilia, any more than Judaism encouraged pedophilia by declaring boys and girls adults at age 13 (see Bar and Bat Mitzvah, which traditionally made them eligible for marriage), or early Christianity encouraged pedophilia by allowing girls as young as 12 to marry. In eras where women had a reasonable expectation of death during childbirth by their 20s, marrying young was not considered a crime. I'm going to refrain from berating you this time (even though I have a serious urge to do so), but I will ask you please (for your own health) to avoid raising FOX News polemic as serious claims in serious arguments. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, have you examined Submission (2004 film) by Theo van Gogh? Also see [2], in which Yemeni's most respected cleric and bin Laden mentor Abdul Majeed al-Zindani leads protest against a new law setting an age of consent. Also look at where the black areas are on that map to the right.

I would quibble about the expectation of early death by childbirth. Though it may be so, this risk doesn't begin until sexual activity begins, and in fact should be less in well-matured women than in girls at menarche, nullifying your argument.

More generally, your comment raises the question of whether pedophilia is in fact a mental illness. If you're saying that the DSM-IV definition doesn't count when you're talking about long ago when lifespans were shorter, then it would seem that the condition is not actually a disease, but only a political crime against the government's demographic plan. Would you say that's true? Wnt (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What I'm saying, Wnt, is that humans are biologically ready for sexuality some short time after the onset of puberty. The sociological elements (customs of marriage and etc) are culturally determined according to numerous factors. most societies in their agricultural phase have/had traditions of early marriage. Hindus, early Christians and European tribal groups, many asian cultures, and even Australian aborigines would allow young children to be married as a social contract - usually the children remain with their parents until they reach a predefined age, after which they move in with their spouse. Note that Mahatma Ghandi was married as a child, and do remember that Ben Franklin (when he was ambassador to france in his 50's or 60's) had a distinct fondness for adolescents that did not reflect badly on his reputation at the time. Sexual intercourse with preadolescents (actual pedophilia the way the DSM IV defines it) is abhorrent in every culture (traditional or modern), and is in fact more of a problem in modern cultures, because (a) modern cultures are more likely to view sex as an act independent of marriage and reproduction, and (b) modern cultures are more likely to set the age for entry into adult life higher.

Please note, as well, two other points: (1) regions with high rates of death during childbirth also have high rates of infant mortality - there is a premium on starting reproduction early if you want to be assured of having any children who survive to adulthood. (2) the black areas on the map not only indicate low ages of consent to marriage, but also indicate regions with incredibly harsh rules against sexual impropriety (up to and including death by stoning). This is not open season on having sex with nine-year olds, as you seem to be interpreting it.

The DSM in DSM IV stands for 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual', and if you'll read it you'll find that they are quite careful to contextualize their statistical norms by culture (they do not want to reach a wrong diagnosis with a patient because of variant cultural norms). The book is not intended as a source of cross-cultural comparison, and shouldn't be used as a source of cross-cultural condemnation.

I doubt that any of this will have any impact on you (since you seem to be stuck in a polemical moment), but just so the matter is clear for others... --Ludwigs2 19:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

P.s. You might find this link informative. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I bother and why you care

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

English is the language of approximately 375 million people and of this Wikipedia, and logically it is the language questioners to the Ref. Desks expect to find here. English is not written in a straightforward phonetic way. As a result a beginner in English may lose their way among these perplexing word correspondences:

your/you're

there/their/they're

its/it's

They are notorious words for being easily confused. An example that I saw recently was a comment on YouTube that said "Your an idiot". Viewed objectively the poster failed to express what he/she wanted to say in English. The orthography was bluntly wrong, and it is meaningless to argue otherwise on the grounds that we can guess what the poster wanted to say. Here I am referring not to simple misspelling of a word but to the error of wrongly placing a different word. When humans write such errors can occur even when individuals have the knowledge to write correctly. I have seen these three categories of their occurrence:

• An isolated error. A decent poster will likely correct their own post on becoming aware of the mistake, and does not object about being informed about it. Fussing about it is just too WP:LAME.
• Multiple errors. To make an error once may be regarded as a misfortune; to make it repeatedly looks like carelessness. (Thanks to Oscar W.). However until proven otherwise we should WP:AGF.
• Deliberate and defiant posting of the bad English. I won't analyze the motive for such behaviour, which can hardly be a noble motive, and I see no merit in excuses that sound like "English is changing anyway" or "my FA's prove I really have excellent English. I shall go on messing up apostrophes. I do as I like here."

It can be argued that the editor in the third case above is bent on disruption. My opinion is that they are letting down the majority of contributors to the Wikipedia project. It is a matter for you, who do take reasonable care about what you post at the Ref. Desks, what you think of questioners being given ill-formed answers that ostensibly represent Wikipedia, the project to which you give your time and efforts.

Since I, a mere Grognard, have been declared persona non grata by a Tutnum of the Encyclopedia and have now been twice blocked (1 week, 2 weeks) for my comments, it is likely that my name will again feature in mopsters' hidden e-mail exchanges as a result of what I have posted here. Their logic of summarily blocking me, the messenger, instead of taking the message, is unconvincing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

wp:letgo. 180.224.139.251 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I am tired of this repeated message about the English language and, if I were an admin, would block you indefinitely. And I am not joking.Cuddlyable3 seems to be making good contributions and I retract my statement. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Who are you replying to? O.o Fribbler (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not the IP. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The blocks are because you fail to observe that others here (including myself) disagree with your argument and find your continued disruptions to be of no positive value. It has nothing to do with a conspiracy. -- kainaw™ 15:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not e-mail any "mopster"; I stated my comment plainly on this talk page and on User:Cuddlyable3's talk page. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The "don't shoot the messenger" theme you keep harping on doesn't fit. This idiom implies that the receiver of the message is shocked or angered by the message itself. Typically it refers to bad news. This idiom further implies that the messenger is punished, or at least blamed for the message itself.

This simply isn't the case on both points. We're completely ambivalent to the message, (Only you care.) and secondly no one would blame you for the content of the message. There is no punishment to be handed out for misusing "it's" that has been incorrectly applied to you.

(Since you've previously stated that you enjoy being corrected on points of English usage, I assume you'll take kindly having this (trivial, and entirely forgivable) misuse of our language pointed out to you.) 72.10.110.109 (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable: I think I can speak for just about everyone here when I say that:

1. We understand the rules of proper, formal English, such as that it's is a contraction and not a possessive pronoun.
2. We agree that, in some circumstances, attention to proper, formal English can be very important.
3. We believe that, in other circumstances, it is an unnecessary and unwanted distraction to obsess over minor bobbles in English usage. We would rather -- much rather -- let these bobbles pass unmentioned than to disrupt the conversation by harping over them.

We believe all three of these statements to be true, at the same time. We see no contradiction here. You do not need to continue to lecture us on points 1 and 2.

Now, which part of this do you still not understand? —Steve Summit (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Steve. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, Cuddlyable, creating lengthy, distracting posts which criticize the accidental typographical errors (such as not pushing the apostrophe key hard enough) at length is not working for you. If you lack the ability to stop yourself from leaving such responses every time a punctuation mark gets accidentally misplaced, then maybe the reference desks are not the place for you. Wikipedia articles are quite full of such accidental errors, so may I suggest that you focus your efforts at Wikipedia on correcting such mistakes there. You clearly have a passion for fixing such problems, and Wikiepdia clearly has a need to have such problems fixed, it's just that the Reference Desk are not high on the priority list for fixing this problem. The article space is. So, why not focus your passion, which is finding missing apostrophes and replacing them, with articles which are missing their apostrophes. If you do so, everyone wins. --Jayron32 03:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Jayron32, I don't feel like analyzing causes of accidental omissions of characters but the idea you suggest of someone pressing the apostrophe key with insufficient force to activate it strikes me as credible, not least because on a standard keyboard the apostrophe key is reached by the weakest finger of a touch typist. OTOH all modern keyboard keys provide physical aids to the typist, both tactile in the form of a "negative feel" return spring and an audible click. Wikipedia has a helpful article about Touch typing that notes "While practicing, it is important to ensure that there are no weak keys.". After that, of course, the editor preview window enables one to check one's typing. I wonder why you find that particular error notable because it seems only an accident, because a correct intention to apostrophise is implied, and that is expressly not criticized by me. I think you will find that I have cited only the opposite error of adding a meaningless apostrophe. Please stop misrepresenting what I have posted because I expressly do not criticize genuine accidental errors. To characterize Wikipedia articles as quite full of accidental errors is harsh towards us their volunteer editors and that is not how they are usually perceived. I lack a passion for fixing something called Wikiepdia.

@Steve Summit please clarify whether your closing question is real or rhetorical since I would rather not debate over circumstances and bobbles unless you truly feel that can be helpful. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

My question to you was 100% real. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I judiciously correct my grammar and strive to have very neat and accurate posts. However, I do not care about other people. I just have the inward satisfaction that I have "arrived" at the perfect knowledge of the English language. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

CA3, the sad thing is that from what I've seen, before you started making such a big fuss over every single problem you noticed including persuingpursuing people like SB who said they didn't care, politely pointing out errors on occasion, particular for those who may not be aware they made an error was if not welcome, IMO generally tolerated on the RD. However with all the fuss IMO primarily that you've caused, it's clear it's no longer tolerated. I also agree if you can't learn to moderate yourself here, you really should turn to improving the encyclopaedia proper provided you can take backpart in any discussion that may result without harping on about errors in the talk page (or pursuing people for any good faith errors they made in the encyclopaedia). I note that this was suggested to you before your block and you did start doing it (for clarity I mean you did start improving the encylopaedia not harping on about errors in the talk page 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)). Nil Einne (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Nil Einne, AFAIK there are no people remotely like SB. But there is a spelling error in your post. It is certainly a good faith error. Now that is a fact and you are informed. Please consider what you feel about this. Have you been violated? Have you been insulted? Have you been pursued by an immoderate harpist? If you feel these things then that is sad indeed, not least because of the chilling effect on volunteer work if everyone fussed so plaintively about a trivial fact placed before them. Take heart as I do from words that are 3-1/2 centuries old: Truth is as impossible to be soiled by any outward touch as the sunbeam. John Milton, 1608 - 1674.

@Steve Summit, thank you for qualifying your question. I choose not to answer it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, the most plausible explanation that I have come up with for their absurd behavior is that, no matter how many times you tell them that "it's" is a contraction of "it is" they'll still make that mistake, over and over again. Maybe the first time you tell them they are like "Okay, sorry, it won't happen again". The tenth time they make the same mistake and are told about it, it becomes obvious to them that they'll make that mistake forever, so they begin to react with hostility.

It's an extremely simple rule that even most foreign children I've known get it always right, yet these "educated adults" from English-speaking countries can't. This is certainly an interesting phenomenon that should be studied. According to my anecdotal evidence, the "it's syndrome" seems to be more frequent in Americans rather than other English-speaking countries, God knows why. --Belchman (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's the thing. I've said many times before I don't mind. But some people do. I don't necessarily agree although I can understand why pointing out every single error of signed comments in the RD (or anywhere else) is going to cause problems. More importantly, even if I don't agree with their view, I respect their right to it. I recognise provided there's no room for confusion, errors they make aren't harming anyone and therefore it would be harmful to tell them something they don't care to be told about.

Now back to my earlier point if someone had pointed out my error in the RD proper before, I think it would have gone down fine, if done politely. But you've turned most people against the idea. Even I am somewhat willing to support a consensus of no mention of grammar and spelling errors in the RD outside of WP:RD/L where relevant since it seems it has become necessary. (ChemicalInterest views seem fairly close to yours but they too I believe think like me.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-opened

This may turn out to be a bad move, but I am removing the archive hat from this thread. This is due to two factors: First, the closing comment seeks/predicts an administrative determination of the eventual outcome - but there is no associated referral of the issue to an admin noticeboard, so it comes across as somewhat of a dare. As an admin watching this closely, I'm not enamoured of the statement, since I may be the one forced to decide - and believe it or not, blocking r srs biznes. Had it been closed with a summary of the views presented rather than opinion, maybe but probably not. The second motivation for re-opening is that I'm kind-of on the line here as approving this thread as Cuddlyable3's last attempt at outlining their issue. I'd much rather see it proceed a little further, for me that is 48 hours so the planet can turn once while people see and think, then once more while they comment. Admittedly that is just my own personal discussion-timer. If I have to make a block then I want to be sure it is a fair block supported by consensus. If this thread devolves into trolling or harassment by repeated reference to individual editors, then I or anyone else can re-close it, but I would prefer to see a declared result which reflects consensus. Franamax (talk) 22:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ludwigs2 closing remark:

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that this problem is only going to be resolved (sad as this may sound) when one side or the other gets blocked/banned. Either administrators are going to start sanctioning people for repeated spelling offenses, or CB3 is going to get sanctioned for continued disruption (and no, I don't see any point in laying odds on which of those is going to happen). In any case, there is no point in dragging it out further here, because no one is even slightly willing to listen to others or change their perspective. So let's all just shut up about it and let the chips fall as they may.--Ludwigs2}}

I wish my comment could be titled "Why I can't be bothered and why nobody should care", but I guess i can be bothered and others do seem to care as well. Perhaps the thread should be titled Bartleby, the Scrivener.

Wikipedia should be about contributions, not about contributors. Yet we've had people banned from pages, even blocked and banned from the project, for repeatedly posting the same arguments, with the exact same wording. There was no violation of policy in their individual posts. It was the repeated, persistent, and rigid insistence of saying what they felt needed to be said, despite all sorts of people asking them to stop, that finally got them blocked. I never like these blocks. I am a firm believer in "focus on what is being said, not on who said it". This online community doesn't work that way, however.

Grammar and spelling mistakes have been pointed out at the desks since I can remember. Sometimes jokingly, sometimes pedantically. Apart from the mocking of non-native speakers or dyslexic editors, this rarely became an issue on this page. When one and the same editor repeats a pattern over and over again - a pattern that is not prohibited by policy, but a pattern which seems to annoy a lot of people - the tolerance toward this individual tends to decrease. Unfortunately this is what happened here.

The pattern annoys people, not because of the "message", but because most people see its informative value as negligible and its contribution to the question at hand as irrelevant, even disruptive. This has been explained more often than I care to count. Cuddlyable3: It doesn't matter whether you're right. This is the system. This is how it works. Adapt, or struggle at your own risk. I am certainly through with commenting on this incredibly lame non-issue. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Like Franamax, I would like some better closure here, but I rather despair of reaching it. My serious question was met with a coy "I choose not to answer", which advances the discussion not at all. So I'm going to try to bow out for now. It's pretty clear that Cuddlyable3 is not interested in squarely addressing the real issue. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say that it wasn't exactly a dare, more of a prediction. I really ought to change my username to Cassandra. God knows I'd rather be wrong about such things (and I would more than welcome someone proving me wrong, if anyone wants to take that as a dare), but as far as I can tell, I'm not. The problem (if I may be frank) is that internet conversation (just like - or even more than - normal conversations) requires a certain willingness towards favorable interpolation: i.e. an tendency to overlook certain minor errors and irregularities of speech as part of the pursuit of mutual understanding. When one gets into a situation like this, where one or more parties are intent on drilling down to some mythical, constantly perfect communication mode, there's just nothing to be done. Communication is never perfect, someone is always going to screw something up somewhere, and trying to insist that other people should be consistently and faultlessly aware of every on-line action they perform is just a recipe for bad feelings and irate responses. There is no civil way to deal with someone who insists on perfection, and there is no way to tell someone who insists on perfection that they are wrong to do so (since, of course, they aren't wrong, they're just irritating).

I think I might start up a campaign to get my state legislature to recognize social perfectionism as a disease treatable under medical marijuana laws. Wouldn't that be nice?

So everyone go on about their business. I've made my dire prediction, and will either smile ruefully when I'm proven right, or smile cheerfully if I'm proven wrong. No skin off my nose either way. --Ludwigs2 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

@Steve Summit: On the whole, I'm entirely in the camp that says the constant, unwanted, spelling corrections are a distraction and an annoyance, but to be entirely fair, your "100% real" question to C3 was quite close to a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of thing where there's no way for them to respond to it without, well, a kind of self-incrimination. While I still think C3 is in the wrong, choosing to not answer your question does not equate with not wanting to advance the discussion... it's more like pleading the Fifth. Matt Deres (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that observation, Matt, you're probably right. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

C3 was blocked twice for the same offense, and then hours after his block expires he posts this diatribe about how he's right and there's a conspiracy against him.

It has clearly stopped being about spelling and is now merely a ploy for attention-getting and trouble-making. It's a waste of everyone's time and effort to humor him. APL (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddyable3: just get with the program here, huh? Your time and skills would be much better spent at WP in other ways. Obviously this issue is very important to you personally, but aren't the other aspects of your participation here as or more important to you? I say sacrifice this issue to the greater good of your over-all value as a WP contributor! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Cuddlyable3, as usual, missed my point above. It was not to point out why someone makes a spelling or grammar error. It was to point out that the ref desks are not a useful place for Cuddlyable3 to be. It may have been a bit snide, but it was still serious: Cuddlyable3 has a passion for correcting grammar and spelling mistakes. Doing so at the reference desks leads to inevitable conflict so he should stop doing so. Instead, the better course of action would be to apply that passion towards a more productive end: fixing problems in the article space. There are thousands upon thousands of articles which could use the kind of scrutiny and attention that Cuddlyable3 appears to be willing to give here instead. If he would just take that energy, and use it for good instead of evil, Wikipedia would be a better place for it. In other words work on correcting spelling and grammar mistakes in articles instead of doing it here. --Jayron32 02:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

And don't forget, Cuddlyable3: WP:Wikipedia is the Holocaust. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh come on! If those of us who use the Queen's English can tolerate the vast majority of Wikipedia (or should I say Wikipaedia?) being bastardised by what Americans consider correct spelling, then surely this dude can overlook a posessive apostrophe here and there. May I suggest a heaped spoonful of WP:DGAF? Mattopaedia ^{Say G'Day!} 08:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

All this seems to have become an open-close-open case. I find no fault with Ludwig2 trying to close the matter. It was an attempt at peacemaking that shall not go unacknowledged, and I refer to Mat. 5:9. Here is a personal note, after which AFAICS we can close this discussion and move on. No WikiDao, Wikipedia is not the Holocaust. However the issue of substandard English was already dragged down to a Reductio ad Hitlerum (does no one know Godwin's law?) before your lighthearted aside.

Members of my family were murdered by, or put their lives at risk to confront, the German Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei thugs. That experience was shared by millions who suffered through the deadliest conflict in human history. Its instigators were the Nazis. The extent of their attrocityatrocity has been unequivocably judged. You have seen me called on this page a (resident grammar-)Nazi. That was a gross personal insult. The Tutnum chooses now to keep silent about English in his trophy room but can read: I do not forget this. I do not forgive this.

Now would be a good point for an admin to nail down the lid on this section that I started. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

But before they do: you made a spelling error, Cuddlyable3. It's atrocity, not attrocity. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Thank you Jack. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

...and did you perhaps mean "a gross personal insult"? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's corrected. Thank you Zain. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The question comes down to whether C3 can and will behave according to the standards of the community. If he can't or won't, then there's really nothing else to do but invite him (or force him) to spend his time elsewhere. If he can and will, he's welcome to participate. I think it's about as straightforward as that at this point, since the overwhelming consensus here is that this kind of spelling and grammar pedantry is disruptive. His endless defense of his position I think shows, at this point, either an inability to let it go (which I don't rule out), or a simple stubbornness or attention-seeking tendency, either of which is really incompatible with non-disruptive editing. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Um, I'm not sure if perhaps Mattopaedia and Cuddly both misunderstood my purpose in linking to the project page, "Wikipedia is the Holocaust" above. At the top of that page, it says: "This page in a nutshell: Not getting your way on Wikipedia? Your human rights have been violated!"

It is meant to be humorous – darkly humorous no doubt – but still it is a WP project page. Why would an admin close a discussion here because someone has cited it? It is apt in this discussion because you are not getting your way here, Cuddly. And, really, Matt: of course I give a fuck, or I wouldn't be here!

Now I hope that clears up my position; let's all just get back to work, shall we? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious Chemistry

Moved from ScienceDesk APL (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as we don't answer certain medical questions, I don't think we should answer some on dubious chemistry such as this. Why, Oh why, do you want to know? --Aspro (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

For reference, here is a dif for the subject of this otherwise disembodied discussion: [3].

Because I'm curious. Why does this seem so suspicious? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not being suspicious. It is that 40 years on, I can still see in my minds eye, the hands of some of my school mates that learnt chemistry he hard way. Chemistry is fun, but if you have to ask on Wikipedia then you might find it very painfully and disfiguring.--Aspro (talk) 21:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a particular reference desk guideline you'd like to quote here? I don't think there is one. I think you're incorrectly discouraging people from answering a legitimate question. (In good faith, I'm sure.)

Because unless there's a guideline I've missed, This seems like exactly the sort of question you want the inexperienced to answer by asking about instead of by experimentation.) APL (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

(Hope I'm not being an ass here, it's just that these sorts of debates tend to swallow questions hole and never achieve any consensus. )APL (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we have a disclaimer anyway. But what exactly do you mean by "dubious chemistry"? We shouldn't be telling people how to make homemade chemical bombs or anything, but then again, anyone asking for that needs a CU and a call to the police. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking how to build a bomb (I'd almost certainly need some nitrogen compound for that). I was just asking if it is possible. Why is it that if I asked "would it be possible to thin paint with it?", no one would take notice, but when I ask "could it burst into flames?", a big discussion is needed? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen your question, and didn't know it was even related to bombs or anything flammable. If it was worded in a way that suggested trying to actually make something, then something is wrong. But otherwise, just being curious is fine. As long as we don't end up enabling anyone else to build a bomb... /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 22:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We've been up against this a few times at WP:CHEMS, and there are certain questions which won't be answered on the grounds that if you need to ask the question you can't be trusted with the answer. Fortunately, there are usually generic answers that can be given: in this case, that mixing a strong oxidant with an organic compound such as sugar is always potentially hazardous. Physchim62 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind answering questions that can kill someone (I appreciate the value of natural selection). I dislike answering questions that can kill other people. Protestations that someone isn't intending to build a bomb make me think that the asker is pretty much an idiot (someone who wants to create an explosion for a reason will at least be cautious with his preparations; someone who wants to create an explosion because it's cool lacks all credibility). --Ludwigs2 23:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I normally would answer chemistry questions. As long as they are chemistry questions, not "How can I make a bomb?" Proper precautions for the chemicals used should be given. Reacting concentrated sulfuric acid with yourself is not cool! I would expect The High Fin Sperm Whale to know what (s)he is doing. Chlorates are not dangerous anyway unless they are melted or reacted with some flammable substance. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Chlorates and perchlorates can be extraordinarly hazardous. The term refers to many thousands of different chemical compounds, each with its own unique characteristics and hazards. Please don't tell people on the desk that chlorates are "not dangerous." They can be explosive, react poorly (dangerously) with conventional firefighting techniques [4], exponentially increase flammability for non-flammable materials; they are known carcinogens, cause long-term reproductive hazards for females in contact with them, produce congenital neurobehavioral diseases[5] ... . Refer questioners to reliable sources, particularly a MSDS, and in particular, tell them to check an MSDS from a reliable place, like their chemical distributor - and not just to "Google it." When we answer questions about these kinds of things, the bar for reliable source must be set considerably higher than usual. If you're unsure of a reliable source, and your answer pertains to something hazardous, don't answer the question incorrectly. Nimur (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

MSDS always makes very scary-sounding warnings. This (WARNING! HARMFUL IF INHALED. AFFECTS RESPIRATORY SYSTEM. MAY CAUSE IRRITATION TO EYES AND RESPIRATORY TRACT.)is for rust. I will use Saf-T-Data ratings from mallbaker.com as a form of comparison between chlorates and other chemicals. Saf-T-data ratings for potassium chlorate [6] are only 2 for health, the same as sodium iodide[7]. I would comment on the toxicity of ammonium dichromate [8]; Saf-T-data rating for health is 4. Same as chromium trioxide [9] or mercuric chloride [10]. But look at potassium perchlorate [11]! Health rating is 1 (slight)! Perchlorates and chlorates may seem like nasty chemicals, but not when compared to the real nasty chemicals. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I have never asked how to make a bomb, I can imagine myself asking such a question, and I certainly would never actually put it into practise. Besides I already know how to make various kinds of bombs, not that I ever have. Why would someone who genuinely wanted to make a bomb bother asking when they can find hte information in two seconds on google?--92.251.134.225 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

They would get a nicer response here, other than just things like "Blow yourself up" that they might get in an unregulated internet forum. We also strive to provide reliable information--internet forums are littered with inaccuracies. Above, I was trying to prove a point that perchlorates are relatively harmless chemicals under normal conditions. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus (as our parents were all fond of reminding us when we were kids) the statement 'everybody else does it' is not a valid excuse to do it ourselves. particularly not on the internet, where people have no standards whatsoever. --Ludwigs2 00:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I would hope that a reference desk would provide better, more reliable sources of information than a two second google search. When researching a potentially dangerous hobby, it is important to seek out the most accurate and reliable information possible, and a two second google search wouldn't really inspire that kind of confidence. (If someone asked about how to build a hang-glider, you wouldn't just say "Google it!", would you?)

Sadly, what I suspect what would happen would be that an argument, much like the one above, would happen, and someone would collapse the thread for no very good reasons other than vague and clearly incorrect assertions that anyone trying to make a bomb is either a terrorist or mentally ill. (The question asker would then go and find a bootleg copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook and blow himself up.) APL (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a bomb. This is a formula for an early match! See 4th paragraph of Match#Early_matches. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and as Smokey the Bear reminds us, it's safe fun to play with matches, particularly when the matchhead may be the size of a milk jug. --Ludwigs2 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We need to keep two simple things straight: 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source for life-and-death decisions, and people should be made to understand this; 2) in general, giving people better information usually helps them to avoid accidents. Now it is true that we don't want editors getting prosecuted as "conspiring to make a bomb" or persecuted under any of Dianne Feinstein's attempts to censor basic chemistry (my, America would be better off if she and Harvey Milk had swapped places...), but we don't want to give up the right to present basic chemistry in the bargain. This is easy to justify when there are such simple questions of much greater public importance directly related to the topic at hand, such as whether a spilled container of bleach can spontaneously start a fire or explosion. Aside from unreasonable legal arguments, the idea that a terror-bomber is going to start by boiling up containers of bleach just seems silly — there are easier means to the same chemical end.

However, due to the attempts to enact unconstitutional laws in the U.S., and the sensitivity of the topic, I would not oppose the creation of a warning template that would warn responders where the legal line is currently positioned, if anyone (and I mean anyone at all...) knows. Wnt (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a reliable source for anything. This is a reference desk. I don't see why referring a question-asker to a freely available resource would ever be something to be ashamed of.

As to your final point, only the foundation's paid legal staff can make that sort of determination. APL (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that people like Sherman Austin have been prosecuted for things that they don't have to be ashamed of. A link I found in bomb-making instructions on the internet gives the full text of the Feinstein amendment as follows:

"(A) to teach or demonstrate the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute by any means information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, with the intent that the teaching, demonstration, or information be used for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence; or"

"(B) to teach or demonstrate to any person the making or use of an explosive, a destructive device, or a weapon of mass destruction, or to distribute to any person, by any means, information pertaining to, in whole or in part, the manufacture or use of an explosive, destructive device, or weapon of mass destruction, knowing that such person intends to use the teaching, demonstration, or information for, or in furtherance of, an activity that constitutes a Federal crime of violence."^[12]

Now the problem here is that the intent of someone who answers a question is a very difficult thing indeed for a jury to measure, and the knowledge that a person has criminal intent is very hard for an individual to recognize. If someone is trying to make chlorate from bleach, does that mean you "know" about a plan for a federal crime? I don't think so, but Fox News could spin it... it looks like this provision has been very sparingly used by those in a position to do so, in order to avoid having it overturned, but as a result it's still a plausible threat. Wnt (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's not be dense. When someone directly asks about how big a fireball a particular reaction might generate, it's safe to assume they are less interested in safety issues than in pyrotechnics (the size of the fireball is irrelevant for safety - any sized fireball is patently unsafe). now as I said before, I don't worry too much about what people do with the information we provide them. However, if someone is too dumb, too arrogant, or too irresponsible to lie to us about what they really want to do, then they are clearly too dumb, arrogant, or irresponsible to be given dangerous information.

Put bluntly, I have no particular ideological problem with telling people how to build bombs. But if someone is idiotic enough to ask baldly, lacks the self-control to censor his more prurient interests, and (in particular) if he blathers on with that typical self-centered sense of entitlement we all know and love so well, then he is simply and clearly not mature enough to merit a response. force him to be sophisticated enough in his questions so that no one suspects he has ulterior motives; if he can plan things out that well he can probably plan things out well enough to avoid blowing his weenie off. --Ludwigs2 02:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Making a fireball is not an explosive; a molotov cocktail can be made with much less difficulty and have a much more devastating effect; although it is much more dangerous and most likely illegal. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe your response (if that's a response to my post) is an example of missing the forest for the trees. --Ludwigs2 15:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

<sigh...> The point here is not that there are easier or better ways to create shiny pretty balls of fire; The point is that if someone is primarily interested in creating shiny pretty balls of fire (of any sort) for his own entertainment, but lacks the self-discipline to hide that self-evidently stupid desire from others (or lacks the wit to realize that he should hide it from others), then he most likely lacks the cognitive skills needed to handle the materials safely. four year olds are smart enough to ask what handguns are, but not smart enough to handle them responsibly; same principle applies here. --Ludwigs2 20:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I venture to say that I know the person in question better than you (wp:bite although you aren't a newcomer) and am pretty sure that he is not an anarchist or any bomb maker, let alone have anything to make a fireball with! It is not wrong to create shiny balls of fire. It is just an unsafe procedure if you do not know what you are doing. It is not stupid, otherwise matches should be banned. Testing the oxidizing capabilities of chlorine(V) on an aldehyde or aldehyde-containing substance is not stupid, put it that way! --Chemicalinterest (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You're talking chemistry, I'm talking psychology. Making nuclear bombs is safe if you have the temperament to work methodically and dispassionately, but people whose main goal is to make bright shinies are not generally inclined towards dispassionate, methodical work. I'm not suggesting he's an anarchist or a bomb-maker; I'm suggesting (based on his post) that he's a bit too juvenile to be considered responsible. You can talk all you want about how safe chemicals are in mature hands and I probably won't disagree with you. but when the people asking questions show a decided lack of maturity that argument no longer applies. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that: 1) perchlorates and chlorates are relatively safe chemicals, 2) concentrated sulfuric acid is very dangerous, 3) If people want to know the facts about chemicals, read the articles, 4) the person in question has "sugar and salt" and will have an extremely difficult time even buying the chemicals, and 5) (s)he is not dangerous. I will decline to continue this discussion as I do not have any more to say. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment check

To hopefully avoid (although perhaps I'll just cause it) any major disputes I'm noting I left this reply. If anyone strongly objects to the last paragraph, I'm fine with them removing it. Nil Einne (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea break, gentlemen.

Might as well have it here rather than the WP:TEA page.

I think that Jayron and Physchim62 were exceptionally helpful to the poster of this question about the Biuret test. Their thoroughness and perseverance helped the OP fully get his head round what seemed to be a sticky topic for him. I wouldn't be surprised if that made his day. Good job! Brammers (talk/c) 08:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt too. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It is insightful on the character of Wikipedia editors that positive comments have so much shorter threads than negative comments. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

...happy feeling gone. -- Scray (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I concur, Chemicalinterest. When I used to write occasional book reviews for fanzines, I found that it was much easier to find plenty to say about bad - or at least flawed - books and harder to write at length about very good ones. On the other hand I admit to being a Devil's Advocate by nature, and I suspect this may be a prevalent mindset amongst the sort of people who like to work the Refdesk pages. On the gripping hand I do agree that one should try to suppress this sort of unconscious carping tendency in onesself. (87.81 posting from . . .)87.82.229.195 (talk) 12:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Splendid idea, Bram, thank you. And here's to the Biuret respondents! Well done.

Now, Bugs, as we were saying below. Thailand, you know, has some wonderful vacation spots, and a large ex-pat community, too. Or, as someone else mentioned, our Thai IP might also simply have been an English-speaking Thai. I'm curious to know, though, what seemed suspicious to you here. That is, what connection do you see between the OP and the Thai IP respondent? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, can we invite the women-folk to this thing, too? I like women. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

But of course! I'm not entirely sure why I put "gentlemen" up there; all are welcome. This isn't WP:Port_and_cigars_in_the_drawing_room. Brammers (talk/c) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

in most cultures, tea is the province of women - it is their way of gently reminding us men what completely uncivilized cads we really are. By the same token, port & cigars is the way we men remind each other what completely uncivilized cads we are, though generally with a somewhat different moral tone. I'm just sayin'... --Ludwigs2 18:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Call me terribly confused, but what is WikiDao's "Now, Bugs ..." doing in this thread? It seems to have nothing to do with it, and Bugs has not made an appearance here either. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, I am simply having a cup of tea, Jack. Would you like one? Sugar...? :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Polite aside: sorry for the cross-chatter if that seemed disorienting. You know how chatty and informal tea breaks can get, eh? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The following Ref. Desk rule goes into effect immediately. No contributor shall under any circumstances be complimented, encouraged or bribed by the tantalizing offer of sugar. Superlatively enlightening contributions couched in impeccable English whose syntax, grammar and orthography can withstand scruitinyscrutiny shall be the expected norm rather than an exception, and therefore not the subject of comment. Editors who fail this standard should gently meditate upon their intolerable shame, and if that does not help then implement a Japanese conclusion. There are questioners waiting at the Ref. desks so drink no more tea and get back to work. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

There is only one condition: WP:IAR is placed over it and it is nullified. :D --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(ahem) "scruitiny"? I hope you get to wallow in your intolerable shame before the cold steel rips into your belly, Cuddly.  :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you JackofOz. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted on sight

[13] this question that is based on the OP's racial OR. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Those signs are over the sidewalk? What's their purpose? And how much clearance is there for walking under? Maybe his friends are all 3 feet taller than he is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Er... why exactly has this been deleted? How it is racist? I have observed many black people deliberately avoid walking under those types of signs while everyone else walks under them, and I would like to know why. To the other poster, no they're not 3 feet tall the signs are tall enough for everyone to walk under them 96.232.187.242 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Chill Cuddles. I can't see anything wrong with the question, although the first response, contrasting crabs and peaodophiles, was a bit strange. -- 1.46.12.70 (talk) 14:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

See Brass Eye. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. -- 1.46.12.70 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Answering the original question, maybe this has to do with it? [14] -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If the current answers are to be believed, it's kind of a cultural superstition, vaguely akin to the one that many of us white Americans used to say, about not stepping on a crack in the sidewalk. Jack's question there echoes mine, which is what is the purpose of that sign, and where is it? Surely not in New York City where the IP supposedly emanates from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The OP who posted "I've seen many other black people do this too, but never white or other races."[15] is the same IP user who comes here to ask "How it is racist?".[16]. It is IP 96.232.187.242, a WP:SPA located near NYC, USA. It is a troll. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. Yet the answers have been of some educational value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

IP 1.46.12.70 located near Bangkok is the other WP:SPA involved in this incident. Baseball Bugs, I wonder why you suggested "improving" the question by adding a reference to "Jamaica"[17] that it does not contain. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Because I found it an interesting coincidence that the OP is ostensibly from the New York area and is talking about something that seems to be connected with the island of Jamaica and there also happens to be a city in Queens called Jamaica. The sign clearly indicates left-side driving, and this "batty man" stuff seems to be connected with the island of Jamaica, which uses left-hand driving. I don't know which side of the road they drive on in Bangkok. But the question you raise suggests that the apparent IP locations might be misleading. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Two SPA IPs pursuing a racist question will serve no educational purpose. WP:DENY Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard the term "batty man" before, nor was I aware that road signs in the island of Jamaica are on two posts, evidently due to the recklessness of Jamaican drivers; nor that they drove on the left side. That was the extent of the educational value. If you want to re-zap that whole section, I won't complain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have re-deleted it. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have (belatedly) notified the visitor on their talk page, as a courtesy and in case there has been any misunderstanding. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! You guys are reading way too much into this. Yeah, the OP didn't tiptoe his way through asking the question, as seems to be expected these days when the subject concerns racially segregated cultures, but in some ways it's refreshing not to have to cringe as someone attempts to gingerly walk across eggshells. C3's assertion above of trolling is rather weak. Yes, the same user who initially posted the question restored it after it was deleted and asked here what was wrong with it. That seems like reasonable behavior. And the first respondent to the reposted question (me), who has provided the only references given so far (weak as they are -- two Facebook groups and one Urban Dictionary entry -- but hey, we are talking of modern and quite possibly very recent superstitions and slang), also dropped a note here after his post. There is a difference between an IP user and a SPA -- I see that I've got yet a different IP address this morning. I don't see how my being in Thailand fits into the theory at all. (FWIW, I'm some 800 km from Bangkok, and for all I know every IP in Thailand might geolocate to the capital.) Were I seeking offense, I'd find BB's "... us white Americans used to say ..." rather racist, but being offense-insensitive (something we should all strive to be), I hear that he is just qualifying his point of view and is not implying that the other participants here share his race. Finally, regarding BB's pondery, right- and left-hand traffic may be of interest, but specifically, here in Thailand we drive on the left, unless on a motor scooter and it's more convenient to travel a short distance down the wrong side of a road. In that case, the counter flowing traffic hugs the curb, and thus drives on the right with respect to the properly positioned scooters. Now throw some tuk tuks, scooters with utility sidecars, bicyclists, and pedestrians into the mix. I suspect that you'd consider Thai drivers more reckless than you apparently do Jamaican drivers. I could find that offensive or even racist, but I instead see it as endearingly parochial. -- 115.67.73.66 (talk) 01:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Thailand! :) Please feel free to re-post your information about this to my question, here. Regards, WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

See, I told you this was educational. I didn't know that black people in Thailand normally speak English, as opposed to, say, Thai. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of people in Thailand speak English -and French and German -as well as Thai; I am not sure what "black" has to do with the language one speaks in Thailand or elsewhere. I am obviously missing something key if BB's comment makes sense to everyone else. Bielle (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

96.232.187.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
1.46.12.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
115.67.73.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yes, they do. I'm expressing skepticism over the IP's alleged location. It would, of course, be helpful if the OP came back under something resembling his original IP, and gave more information than the fairly-cryptic and assumption-making original question. But he seems to have disappeared. I guess that's life in Jamaica, at either island. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I missed something here. Why was this deleted? Was it assumed to be a troll question, or do we simply not tolerate references to dark skinned people and homosexuals that don't use those PC terms?

Probably a bit of both. I've seen other occasions (don't ask me for cites) where someone would ask, "Why does [race] always [whatever]?" Those are usually race-baiting questions, and even though they might be innocent, they violate the old rule, "We've told you a million times, Don't exaggerate!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Worth noting though that the OP didn't suggest that all blacks do it. In fact their comment was about their friends, but not even all their black friends. Personally I'm willing to AGF on this on. It's possible this is just a troll but it isn't a completely unresonable question. In terms of blacks/white/other race thing, I don't think that's inherently bad. It's like asking why many of your Arab friends dislike it when you show your shoes. And it seems to be only your Arab friends who do it, not Chinese, Indian etc friends. BTW I agree the earlier comments by BB seem to be confusing this discussion. There is no suggestion the OP is from Thailand. One of the commentators in this discussion is from Thailand is all. P.S. Since the OP is clearly already aware of this discussion I don't think there was really any need to inform them, although I'm not complaining about it. Nil Einne (talk) 09:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why I belatedly (as I noted at the time) notified the OP of the deletion, even after the OP was aware of the discussion here: because it had not been done at the time of deletion, even though it is the courteous thing to do and because doing so (preferably right away) may in general save a lot of confusion and ill-will. I was just trying to make that point, as merely academic as it by that time was. I agree with your other comments, Nil. :) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have no idea why this question was deleted. It's a legit question that was slightly poorly worded. I don't get it at all. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Me neither; in fact, I found the thread interesting. I already knew of the "battyboy" and "battyman" slurs (some Jamaican dancehall music is infamous for them) and, knowing that violent prejudice against male homosexuality is endemic in Jamaican culture and society I can believe that such a superstition might exist, whether as a genuine belief or (perhaps more credibly) as a kneejerk public demonstration of conformation to a social norm: "Hey, look everyone, I walked round the sign, I'm not gay!" The subject matter of the question may be controversial but it's not necessarily trolling to ask about it, or helpful to nuke it without attempting to find out if there's anything to it. My instinct would always be to expose such things on a cold slab in daylight and see how they look after careful dissection. Karenjc 12:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Point of order

WP:EUI warning (and I'll probably regret saying even that tomorrow, too;)
In a conflict between WP:DENY and WP:GOODFAITH, who would win? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 07:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Since DENY only applies to known trolls, once you've got to the point where you can apply it, you no longer need to AGF. Vimescarrot (talk) 09:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, see, that's what I figured. Good to know, thanks. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Would a difficulty rating system help?

I thought it would be cute to set up some icons based on ski courses: (note mouseover messages) by which posters could identify the difficulty level of the question and/or answer. I have no idea whether this is actually potentially helpful or just annoying. ;) What do you think? Wnt (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely to be useful. And since this is Wikipedia, it will only lead to endless fights over whether or not someone rated a given question properly. → ROUX ₪ 07:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please no. We get so many people who can't follow the directions at the top of the page anyway, why add another level of complexity to the whole system? Dismas|^(talk) 07:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but no thanks. The symbols are useful for ski slopes. This kind of single-dimensional judgement was once thought to apply to multi-dimensional reality but this sceptic protests that It Ain't Necessarily So. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiments behind them but what is "hard" is strongly objective (when I was younger, times tables were hard. Then GCSEs were hard, and times tables easy. Then A-Levels were hard, and GCSEs a doddle. Now my degree is hard and I could do an A-Level in a fortnight. In a few years' time who knows what will be hard...). I also agree with Roux's latter point and that of Dismas. But please don't take this as a brush-off, because you had a good idea and put in the effort to produce a finished product, which is the approach that gets things done. If more people did that then WP would be an even better place, so thank you for putting it forward anyway. Regards, Brammers (talk/c) 14:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit: just noticed that it's linked to school level. Good for things directly related to schoolwork, but if it's not then people would probably find it difficult to classify their question appropriately. Brammers (talk/c) 14:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the difficulty with appropriate categorization, as a matter of accessibility we should strive to avoid making extremely large Wikipedia pages any larger (both in terms of downloaded size, and in terms of area required to display). We try to curtail the worst excesses of enormous signatures, and we strongly discourage the use of any image that isn't absolutely required. Granted, these images are small (in both senses) but are an unnecessary drag for editors working with dial-up – they still exist! – or who are editing Wikipedia using a mobile device (much more common, these days).

It's also not entirely clear how such categorization would be helpful to our readers or our responders. The amount of traffic the Desks get means that it is still quite straightforward for the reader of a Desk to read every single question in a couple of minutes, and decide for themselves which questions are within their ability to answer. It is likely that more time will be consumed in deciding on and applying the symbol templates than could conceivably be saved by warning off editors from the 'too-difficult' questions. And depending on a person's particular interests, hobbies, or specialized knowledge, we don't want to discourage them from approaching difficult questions that they might well be able to answer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A brief pitch about connection speeds: I was recently traveling internationally, and my connection speed averaged (over several hours) approximately 1 kbps (that is, one thousand bits per second). (The connection was shared by hundreds of users and had a very sloppy proxy-server). During good speed-bursts at night, I could download the whole (text-only) WP:RDS in about ten minutes. Slow connections still exist, and some of our OPs and reference-desk regulars definitely appreciate bandwidth-conservative approaches. (I'd still rather take 30kB of thumbnail images than 30 kB of meaningless meta-argument any day, so efforts to curtail that waste of bandwidth would be greatly appreciated!) Nimur (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I would think that it was fun to wait that long, but is Wikipedia really that important? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 16:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I was just happy to have some uncensored news from the outside world. Nimur (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, the four icon thumbs above have about 1.2 KB together, and they would only need to be downloaded once.—Emil J. 15:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, the shapes could be implemented using text only: ●■◆.—Emil J. 15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has pointed out that it's not clear why people are expected to know what the images mean. If you ski, perhaps you will. If not they're just strange images. Sure if someone tells you they've a difficulty rating system and shows you them side by side it's easy to guess what means what but if you just come across strange symbols on the RD, you're very likely going to have no idea what they mean. (I can tell you if I hadn't read this thread but just saw those symbols on the RD I would be confused as to what they mean.) Edit: In fact from Alpine skiing you don't just have to ski, you have to ski in North America. Nil Einne (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Admittedly, I never knew that the system was limited to North America. I'm not designed for skiing and I'm really quite ignorant of it, but I thought the symbols were widely known. The main explanation of the symbol meaning was in the mouseover text; though if the idea had caught on I'd have been tempted to think about creating a category system (though that can't be done without better indexing of the questions in general and probably wouldn't have happened). Actually, I thought I'd made the symbols a bit too big (20px would disrupt the line spacing less). Above all, I never intended it as a mandatory system for anyone - mostly I pictured it as a way for the person asking the question to add a quick extra indication of what level of response he wanted, and also for responders who stray from the topic (myself as guilty as any) to mark sections that are getting more technical than the person asked for. What really made me think of this was an edit I made where I was supposed to be answering whether 5' to 3' means N to C but I couldn't help but start going on about the evolution of protein synthesis and why proteins go in that direction. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think difficulty is what makes people decide to answer (or not answer) questions. It is topic. If you ask an easy question about Dancing With the Stars, I won't answer it because I've never seen the show and can only assume it is still on television. If you ask a very hard question about hedgehogs that you assume only 3 or 4 people in the world may know, I will likely give a good answer because I have spent about 20 years studying hedgehogs. So, all in all, I would completely ignore any "difficulty" ratings and look for the topic of the question. -- kainaw™ 20:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I didn't picture it being used that way, but just as a cute little indicator, used only as desired, for the level of technical detail. But it really was no work to make this template anyway, and I can't make people like the idea. Wnt (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

A cute little indicator that could become a focus for those who would rather dream up "hard" quextions rather than allow just the natural flow of curious people's questions to happen. Wouldn't it be great to have two double-diamond questions up there at the same time? I'm not saying you yourself would treat it that way, but others would. Franamax (talk) 21:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Besides, one of the strengths of the Reference Desk is the ability to provide a high dynamic range within a single answer/thread. We direct beginners to relevant articles and experts to cutting-edge scholarly research. This process of providing the full gamut of responses helps turn beginners into experts. Nimur (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

If the OP can't figure out the answer, then presumably there is only one degree of difficulty, called, "Can't figure out the answer." Maybe it would be more fitting to have a series of these, posted by the answerer...

...indicating the degree of ease in answering it? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which indicates "easy" and which indicates "hard"? You're making huge assumptions about the way a reader will interpret your icon(s), which is a serious shortcoming in any implementation of a constructed symbolic system. Perhaps you should read our article on human-computer interaction and internationalization and localization, and consider refactoring your scheme. Nimur (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, difficulty depends on the person. One person may consider a question difficult. Another may consider it easy. So, questions themselves are not difficult or easy. Attempting to label them as such is rather pointless. -- kainaw™ 17:27, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It's just a concept, details to be worked out. But I was thinking in terms of movie ratings, 1 through 4 stars. 4 would probably be the toughest to answer. 1 could be a question like, "How do you spell FBI?" 4 could be a question like, "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm deeply puzzled by what the point of either rating system is supposed to be. What existing problem are they supposed to address? Who is supposed to find them useful? What benefit would using them bring for the question asker, and what benefit for the people offering referenced answers? I can certainly see many costs and downsides, mostly for the person asking a question. But without knowing what this is supposed to achieve (other than making some people feel like they've done something? making it feel more like an arcane club?) it's difficult to know whether it's worth trying to improve it. If the concept is pointless, why work out the details? 109.155.37.180 (talk) 21:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

For the notion of having the OP post a degree of difficulty, there's no way for the OP to know what the difficulty of answering the question is, so that concept doesn't work. For the approach of the responder posting a certain number of stars or face-palms or whatever, it would serve to mock the OP. So that's pretty much it as far as its usefulness. :) P.S. Do you know who's buried in Grant's Tomb? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, the OP knows if he wants an answer to understand a class or do an assignment, or if he's asking about a technical problem for a research project in grad school, or if he's just fishing for ideas from current research. So I thought it was eminently self-ratable - again, only if you wanted to. (Note, I'm just answering the question - I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows) Wnt (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

When I looked at this page this AM, your montage of people holding their heads was just above the heading "A lost long weekend?". I thought you guys'n'gals had a wild party while I was out and just couldn't get your headings straight yet. Also you could use it to show you're able to type answers with one hand while covering your eyes. :) Franamax (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A lost long weekend?

I've just noticed that there seems to have been no posts on the Language Ref Desk between 6 October and 12 October. Is it just my computer throwing a wobbly, or has something gone astray? I'm sure there were posts in that time period. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I see plenty on the 7th, 8th, 9th, ect... -- kainaw™ 14:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that in the TOC, "6 October 12" means 6th section, the 12th of October.—Emil J. 14:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I am also lacking questions dated OCT 7-12. Googlemeister (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Which posts do you see on the desk then? Currently there are only questions from October 7 to October 1213 on the desk, the older ones are archived.—Emil J. 18:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(I just added the missing October 13 heading.)—Emil J. 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Try purging the server cache 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Very strange. I now see that the missing posts have reappeared since I last looked this time yesterday. I haven't done anything on either of my two computers which might have affected this. Having seen Duncan's problems with IPA today, I'm beginning to wonder if there is some subtle vandalism at work, or am I being presumptive? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I see correctly dated questions and answers on the language ref desk, except there is 1 question from Oct 6 in the Oct 12 area. Most odd. Googlemeister (talk) 19:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

And the bot has been muttering quietly to itself about that misplaced October 6 entry for four days, now, I can tell you.

(This ends up being one of the non-obvious reasons why presumptuously moving your unanswered question to the head of the queue is Not a Good Idea. Or at least, I assume that's what happened.)

—Steve Summit (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Browsing through the history (though it's a very brief browse, I'll admit), I see nothing unusual. The only major page deletions are Scsbot's normal archives. While 3 days of questions are transcluded, and their deletion would escape this overview, a gap of 6 days' worth of questions would require the deletion of a lot of non-transcluded content (that I think I'd have caught). So I'm going to vote against subtle vandalism in this instance -- though I'm far from a MediaWiki expert. — Lomn 20:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

What is acceptable at the RD?

Is this question (diff) acceptable for the RD? I'm making no judgment about it, just trying to get a better sense of what is and is not acceptable (at the RD). It does not seem too "serious" and it apparently requires watching pornography to answer (I haven't, yet). WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, so adult-content is not grounds for removal. But I am suspicious that this question was posted as either spam/advertisement/goofing-around, and not as a legitimate reference request. I think the first answer was appropriate; if the question was intended to spark controversy, the best way to answer it is with a boring response. Nimur (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm at home, and I happen to not particularly mind naked men all over my screen, I had a look. It is definitely not spam or advertisement (unless it is spam of the common-exhibitionism-on-Commons-hey-look-at-my-wedding-tackle variety). → ROUX ₪ 21:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

And we wonder why women think we're idiots. I note the question was posted by a one-shot IP from Germany. There is another ref desk with a question asking about good things the Nazis contributed to society. Maybe this is on the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No no, women think you're idiots for assuming everyone is a man unless otherwise stated :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.37.180 (talk) 00:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Meaning what? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

best not to seek out meaning in a meaningless thread. or perhaps better put, if you try to talk about the nuances of gender with an adolescent, you just end up looking like a pedophile. There will always be young people who get their nobbly in a wobbly by showing people naked people. it's all still fresh and new and embarrassing to them, and so they think it must be fresh and new and embarrassing to the rest of us. pure projection of their own inner state on the outer world. in ten years (if they are normal) they'll be sitting right where we are, wondering why dingy kids do exactly the same thing. cycle of life. it would all be very inspirational if it weren't so damned tawdry. --Ludwigs2 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I still don't know what the IP was getting at, but what Ludwig said above reminds me of something a friend told me probably 40 years ago: "Every generation thinks that they invented sex." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain the IP was wondering why you assumed the question was posted by someone who is male. Women have sex lives just as rich and interesting as men. → ROUX ₪ 03:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...or more-so.<ref>Penthouse Forum</ref> DMacks (talk) 04:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I made no assumptions about the OP's biology. I was referring to the idiot in the video, which was most likely male. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I don't really see why the guy in the video is an idiot though. As long as he's nor harming himself (my understanding from friends--no, not a euphemism--is that these units do not cause damage) or others, I don't think there's anything wrong with what he's doing. Not my cup of tea, to be sure... but it's not my body, either. → ROUX ₪ 07:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not that he emerged unharmed - it's that he would even try it in the first place. That's [one reason of many] why women think we're morons. I wonder, for example, how many females have died as a result of what David Carradine supposedly died from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The ultimate example of stereotypical male foolhardiness might be at Los Alamos, where some of the scientists were saying, "Gee, this atomic bomb test could trigger a chain reaction that could destroy the earth. Let's try it and see!" (somewhat paraphrased) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a higher statistical incidence of fetish behaviour amongst men, generally.. that being said, again, it's not really kosher to refer to it as idiotic. I can guarantee there is stuff you do in the bedroom that others would consider idiotic. But we are ranging rather far afield of the topic at hand. → ROUX ₪ 08:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You bet. For example, I have my work-PC powered-on in the bedroom. If that isn't idiotic, I don't know what is. But you have to be ready for those middle-of-the-night emergency e-mails. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had thought you were talking about the person asking the question, and I'd thought it was an odd assumption to make... Are men more likely to enjoy watching men orgasm than women are? But now all is clear. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To the original question here: It's the kind of question that could be trolling, but could also be innocently asking. A borderline case. The warning is definitely good here, although it makes sense to hover the mouse over any posted link, to get some clue what it is first, if you're viewing someplace where you might draw unwanted attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What was that list you mentioned earlier, Bugs? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 09:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On one of the ref desks, I forget which, someone asked what are "good" things the Nazis did, and that sparked some different viewpoints. The way I see it, they didn't do much of anything that was "good" from the moral standpoint, but they did do things that were "useful" - such as establishing limited-access expressways (autobahns), advancing the science of rocketry, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you might have meant some sort of list of potentially-disruptive edit-patterns or something which one might keep an eye on. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we could develop a ref-desk-only template for questionable off-site links (something that would wrap it in a 'follow at your own risk' warning). That wouldn't fly on the main site, bu since the ref desk is far more fluid and open it might be a god idea. opinions? --Ludwigs2 19:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone was talking about a degree-of-difficulty indicator earlier. Maybe a "rating" for links would work: G, PG, R, X or whatever. The OP and/or responders might not know the answer to a question, but they should have a reasonable idea of whether a link is safe for public viewing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

As was mentioned in the difficulty indicator, you'd need to make it international. Britain, for example, doesn't use R, and they might use X but I've never seen it. If you want to pursue it, I'd suggest starting a new section for it, since it'd just get a bit lost in this one. Vimescarrot (talk) 21:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking something else entirely, myself, to do with "some sort of list of potentially-disruptive edit-patterns or something", because I did not catch the connection Bugs was making when he said "Maybe this is on the list?" in his first comment above. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes my subtlety is lost even on me. :) The point being, the OP is from Germany, which reminded me of the other ref desk's question about "good" things produced by Nazis, and it occurred to me that if the Nazis had invented an electrified genital-torture machine that was now being marketed as an erotic stimulation machine, then that might qualify for the list of "good" things from the Nazis. Having to explain a lame joke does nothing to make it any less lame. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I had hoped that the difficulty rating I thought might be useful; though I should admit I was also experimentally curious about the underlying disposition of editors toward content rating schemes in a non politically charged situation. While I think it could be productive to give hints on the nature of the discussion, I don't support rating schemes that have any underlying motivation to censor content. But as it so happens, even my "inoffensive", purely voluntary and not intended to be universal scheme was rather roundly rejected - I was actually rather surprised by how much consensus was against it. It suggests to me that the rejection of other ratings schemes might be more due to the technical unworkability and less based on the politics than I would have assumed. Wnt (talk) 19:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed request for medical advice

I have removed this question [18], which to me looks like a textbook example of someone asking for medical advice (in particular, asking for a diagnosis). Red Act (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Good call. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree. -- Scray (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Roger wilco, cool use of that template. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I removed what was a pretty textbook case of diagnosing someone from a vague description, added after the removal of the question. diff I also informed the person involved on their talkpage. 109.156.205.27 (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it could be anything from athlete's foot to cancer, obviously the guy needs to see a doctor ASAP and not try to get a diagnosis from a website that anyone can edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See, that in itself is medical advice. There are certain areas in the world where "seeing a doctor" can be quite expensive, and we don't want to unnecessarily recommend that when they don't need to. The advice is, as always, if you are worried about it, see a medical professional. Buddy431 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to phrase it as "if you're worried about it, see a doctor", that would be fine, albeit redundant, as if they weren't worried they likely wouldn't have brought it here. But telling someone to see a doctor is not medical advice. Telling someone not to see a doctor, is medical advice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Gotta agree with Bugs here. It's stupid not to tell people to see a doctor because it might be expensive for them. I doubt anyone is using the RD of the English Wikipedia who is in such a position. Even in the US there are clinics to accomodate such people. Aaronite (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of creating a monster thread, there are sites that are willing to take medical questions, some of which I would be comfortable recommending to someone (generally ones where medical professionals are asking the questions, who hopefully have the sense of when it's appropriate to recommend seeing a physician in person). Would mentioning such a site when this type of question comes up run afoul of our medical guidelines? Buddy431 (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

That answer appeared after the question had been removed, right? An answer to a question that is not there should be removed, too, I guess.

It is not clear to me that a "best policy" has been arrived at for dealing with this kind of question. I get the impression there are some vague policy and legal issues, and that short of blatant violations of those or other WP guidelines we should all just try to be as flexible, civil, and appropriately helpful as possible no matter what action we or others think best suits a given case. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I politely request that anyone thinking of continuing to discuss this first read User:TenOfAllTrades/Why not?, and then ideally look through the archives and read at least 4 previous threads (preferably from 4 different years) discussing this. Having done this, if you still want to discuss the topic, at least you stand a chance of saying something new, and should be able to see what the 'best policy' solution was decided as (clue: it was what Red Act did in the first place). 109.155.37.180 (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with Red Act's action in my first comment above. My second comment was then with regard to the removal of Wnt's response to the now removed question. I don't know why Wnt would have wanted to do that, and it seemed best to remove it but that seemed less clear to me than the removal of the question itself.

We are never all going to be as up on and in agreement about "policy" applicable to this issue as everyone else all at the same time. That is evidenced by the very long history this topic appears to have. And that is why common-sense flexibility and good faith on all our parts is necessary here when it comes to the finer details and to gray-zone issues.

Thanks for the links to previous discussion, and I will try to have a look at more of that if I get a chance. But if WP would like to have new RD regulars come along from time to time, you should expect that discussion/disagreement to continue indefinitely. It's not going to be possible to avoid that, but encapsulating in clear and succinct language as much of RD policy as possible as it has been developed and agreed upon would certainly be a good idea.

I'm not interested in having an endless debate over any of this just for the fun of it, or because I must insist that "my way is the only way" for some reason. I am interested in understanding better how the RD works and how to help it work better for WP's purposes. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. I'm sorry if I came off as more dismissive than I intended. I offered the link to Ten's summary as a quick way for people to read up on the reasoning behind the policy, and suggest looking through the archives to find 4 separate discussions because people might be unaware a)just how much this has been discussed b)that the position reached has generally always been the same. Medical advice offered by anyone can be removed on sight, and a summary and link to a diff provided on this page. If people then disagree that it is medical advice, it can be added back after discussion. Medical advice is one of the key exceptions to ask-first-remove-later, because of the potential for harm, just as BLP issues are in main space. The removal of the question itself is actually a more contentious, later solution, made necessary because people were unable to leave such questions alone, necessitating a lot of removal of medical advice leading to bad feelings. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not believe that it is "medical advice" to refer people to a general article about blister-like lesions on the feet, even if they happen to have blister-like lesions on the feet. Medical diagnosis implies that you actually say someone has something, not when you tell him he can look up resources that we maintain about just the topic. Otherwise pretty soon you'll be cross-referencing the IPv6 NIC card identity stamp against the interstate prescription database to prevent the Wikipedia search function from making "medical diagnoses" by returning results about a disease when someone who can be ascertained to have the disease types in the search terms. I'm not sure that is even an exaggeration. Wnt (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

In order to send someone to a relevant article, we'd need to know something about what they have - and that involves diagnostic decision-making. If someone complains of chest pain, we should not send them to the chest pain article. Are you certain that blisters on the feet are always less serious than chest pain? Even if you were (I'm not), where would we draw the line? To link to an article is to suggest that someone has something (to use your terminology) - and that's medical diagnosis (something we must not do on the RD). -- Scray (talk) 22:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not to suggest they have something - it's to suggest they might be interested in something. They may or may not choose to use the information to diagnose themselves, and they may use it to decide that the condition is a possibility or they may use it to decide that it is not a possibility. They may be on the lookout for some sign or symptom mentioned in the article which, and by noting or failing to note it they may be able to give a physician information that he can use to make a better diagnosis. This information that we give them is not based on what they have, it is based on what they ask. We are simply here to help them expand their reading interests and scientific knowledge - nothing more, nothing less. Wnt (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

More likely they're trying to avoid going to a doctor because the doctor might tell them some bad news, that being human nature. As far as sending them to an article, keep in mind the axiom that wikipedia is not a reliable source, so you risk sending the OP to a page that has false or misleading information. The only valid response to "What could this be?" is "Go see a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I've just started my own essay page at User:Wnt/Why?. This is a quick first draft and I've missed many valid arguments. Wnt (talk) 23:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You may have missed the recent discussion in which it was pointed out that (1) giving medical/legal advice here is unethical; and (2) we could be held liable, as individuals, for giving incorrect advice. And as I said already, wikipedia is not a reliable source. They need to be advised to see a professional. Presupposing that they can't afford one is no excuse for trying to play doctor ourselves. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between giving simple information and representing something as professional advice. This is simply a matter of information. What's the difference between naming a condition that has a specific set of symptoms here, in response to a question, and describing it in an article that someone might look up who has those symptoms? We need to defend our right to present the information and the right of all people, sick or well, to seek it out. Wnt (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

"He who tries to be his own doctor has a fool for a patient." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Any one of us is welcome to present whatever information we want, and answer whatever questions we like – and, potentially, face whatever consequences might accrue – on our own websites or blogs. What we don't have is a 'right' to use Wikipedia's resources for our own missions and purposes, nor do we have a 'right' to jeopardize the reputation of the project in order to give out dubious health advice from non-professionals. (WP:Right and WP:FREESPEECH cover the point in more detail; I won't belabor it here.) Our little space here exists on sufferance; we last only as long as the rest of Wikipedia sees the Ref Desk as contributing positively towards building our encyclopedia.

A bit of history may be relevant here. We have never represented Wikipedia as being a professional publication, and we clearly disclaim on every page that our contents may not be accurate — but that didn't stop us from getting dragged through the mud during the Seigenthaler controversy. That was all the way back in 2005, so newer editors may not be as familiar with what a shock those events were to the project. Jimbo Wales himself got raked over the coals on the evening news. It was the first time we really recognized that we weren't the plucky little underdog any more, and the press weren't going to give us a free pass. We're not the little guy; we're the top Google hit on nearly any topic of interest. The Wikimedia Foundation handed down new and draconian rules governing biographical articles; that was a stunning departure in our happy little discussion- and consensus-driven community.

If the Ref Desk encourages, or permits, or condones, or just lets medical advice through on a wink and a nod, we're setting ourselves up for another Seigenthaler incident. One bad apple screws all of us over — not just the dedicated volunteers at the Ref Desk, but the entire Wikipedia project gets tarred and feathered. It's not fair, but it's how the media work. Damage control from above means, most likely, the Foundation stepping in and shutting us down to show that they're serious about dealing with problems. Frankly, if we're not capable of conducting ourselves responsibly, then they might even be right to do so.

It's possible that the Wikipedia community feels that we're too restrictive in the level or type of medical advice we permit (or don't permit) here at the Reference Desk. Our policy on medical advice was established something like three years ago; if you would like to propose a calm, reasoned review and revision of the existing rules, then that might be something that could be done. But until we can establish that there is broad support for a revision to the existing rules – support that includes editors of the entire project, and not just the smaller community at the Ref Desk – then I ask you to respect the established consensus, even if you personally disagree with it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) It would seem perfectly okay to me in many circumstances to say something like, "it sounds to me as an RD respondent like you really ought to talk to a _________ professional about that, but while you're here you might also want to have at a look at our articles on X, Y, and/or Z that might be of interest to you."

Of course, if a question meets the criteria for the response Red Act correctly made to this one, and is removed from the desk and replaced with the appropriate template message, then there is no longer any question to respond to so responding to it in any way at all wouldn't generally seem to make much sense.

I'm interested to hear what you, Bugs, think about what I just said. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's put it this way: Knowing what I do about wikipedia, I would never recommend self-diagnosis from wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why someone would make such a big deal out of this Siegenthaler incident. It was one bogus article written up by some pranksters about some nobody. Big deal. There wasn't even a lawsuit about it. And there's a big difference between keeping up a bogus article for four months and someone pointing someone at an article about a medical symptom that doesn't happen to be the cause of a particular person's illness. From start to finish this is not a reasonable fear. — oh, and remember Fox News and the "child pornography" on Wikipedia? Truth is, old media doesn't need a reason to trash this site, and they won't wait for one. Wnt (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is, we do not give out medical and legal advice, beyond "see a doctor" or "see a lawyer". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, of course, Bugs. Absolutely agree with you.

But saying "you may find these articles, related in some way to your question, to be of interest to you" is NOT that.

Just to clarify, Bugs: you do not have a problem under pertinent circumstances with people saying, "sounds to me as a nonprofessional that you ought to address your question to the appropriate professional; THAT SAID, this is an online encyclopedia and we have all sorts of articles that you might want to read for some reason!" – right?

Because I am not asking if it is okay to diagnose a visitor or recommend that the visitor self-diagnose solely on the basis of WP content. Has anyone here ever even actually done such a thing?! I have certainly never seen anyone give medical advice here, so I'm still having trouble seeing why there is such an astonishing amount of disagreement around this issue. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the links in this thread, then you have indeed seen someone offer medical advice on the desks. Wnt responded to 'I have this vaguely-described medical problem - what is it?' with 'See our article on this specific thing', implying a diagnosis. If you want to see more explicit examples, have a look through the talk page archives. There you will see people propose exactly 'Can't we respond with "See articles X, Y and Z"? It's only providing information.', and you will also see the discussion of that. Seriously, this has been hashed out over and over again: if you want to have a proper discussion of this, please read up on previous discussions so you are not just repeating them. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about situations where we link to articles on topics specifically mentioned by the question-asker? Or situations where the question-asker describes his symptoms, and the responder diagnoses the problem and says "You might be interested in our article on [Whatever the responder guesses is the asker's problem]"? Because it makes a world of difference! APL (talk) 04:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Please point me to the WP policy page

Thank you, 109. I am sure it must be frustrating for those of you who have been through all the past drama, to have to see someone who hasn't come along and ask questions about it. But you really ought to expect that to happen regularly, and not expect that every RD newbie who comes along must read through that great epic struggle before being permitted to question it.
Medical advice is what you get when you see a designated medical professional on a formal basis about a medical condition, and that person then gives you professional advice about it. I have never seen that happen here. I have never seen anyone claim to be a medical professional, or claim that a recommended article might serve as authoritative medical advice.
It seems pretty difficult to understand how consensus could have been arrived at that it is ever "wrong" to say "this article may be of interest to you" for any reason at all.
Does ANY other encyclopedia ever tell its users in any way anything like: "Please do not read the articles in this encyclopedia if you are interested in anything that may pertain to a medical condition?"...?
I mean, if we are worried that some person may come along and take a medical-related article to be giving them formal professional medical advice, then why do we even permit such articles to exist in the first place? It just makes no sense.

• Can someone please point me to the WP Policy page that expressly states: Editors may never say to a reader, "You may want to seek professional advice elsewhere, but since you are here and since WP is an encyclopedia, you may find the following wikipedia articles to be of interest to you."
  

Thank you, and sorry for any impatience anyone may feel because I have asked for that policy clarification, but I am asking it in good faith and would appreciate a direct, formal answer. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 11:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be unreasonable to expect newbies to know that this has been talked to death, but it is not unreasonable to expect such a newbie, once informed of this, to read a few of the previous discussions from the archives. Just as the evolution talk page expects newbies to read archives of certain discussions rather than hash them out again, just as we don't expect to write out a whole article afresh everytime someone asks a question on (for example) iron, rather than asking "Does our article iron answer your question?". It sucks to find a landmine in any community, but you have been given enough information to read up on it now. Ten's essay is aimed exactly at people in your situation, and has links to policy pages and context. The archives here are easily accessible, and you can click on almost any of them to find a discussion of this. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines#What the reference desk is not, and the link from there to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice. Which may be what I was asking for; I'll have to consider what it says there more carefully as soon as I get a chance... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 12:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That policy excludes direct comments or recommendations on a questioner's condition, but deliberately avoids the issue discussed here. Saying "You have..." is different from "You might be interested in...". The spirit of the policy is likewise divided, underlying this difference: it speaks of trying to avoid more or less paranoid scenarios of medical liability, which as far as I've ever heard have not been applied to any other forum or poster on the Web; but then where that gives out it makes moralistic judgments about posters possibly giving someone the wrong idea. (For all the talk about not giving legal advice, who gave us this legal advice????) I don't believe that well-intentioned amateur speculation, even ignorant speculation, is morally or ethically wrong — provided that it is not misrepresented as anything better. On average it should do more good than harm. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's nice to know, but you should respect the moral and ethical position of the majority of Reference Desk contributors who do not want to see medical or legal advice on the desks. The Reference Desks guidelines were worked out through extensive debate; they represent a prudent but common sense compromise between extremes; and they have stood the test of time. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I agree with that, Wnt – within the general framework described by Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice.

I see that the When in doubt section of that page says:

"If the consensus is that the given response constitutes medical advice, the response in question will be removed immediately. During this process, responders are strongly encouraged to suggest ways to rephrase answers (their own or others') to present useful information without offering a diagnosis or other medical advice."

Which is about responses, but would seem to suggest the possibility of rephrasing questions, too, so that they meet RD medical/legal guidelines and can be re-posted in now-acceptable form to the desk and answered accordingly (it might be a good idea to incorporate that possibility, concerning re-phrasing questions so that they become acceptably not-asking-for-professional-advice, in the policy guideline).

And I see that you did rephrase the question, Wnt, in this diff here, and your rephrasing of the question seems okay by me according to this guideline. Your answer perhaps then goes a bit far into OR, in my opinion, though not really intolerably so for an average, casual RD response in itself. Given that the question started out as a request for medical advice, though, it probably would have been best to answer your re-phrased question with a simple "you may be interested in our plantar wart article" and have left it at that.

So here's where I stand on this one:

• Red Act's original removal was exactly right.
• Wnt's rephrasing was acceptable, but probably should have been at least proposed for discussion here first, and then should have been responded to as simply and neutrally as possible – had it been, there would have been no grounds according to the above policy to have removed it, too.

Everyone agree? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of rephrasing medical advice questions for the purpose of skirting our policies, because in the end we're just answering medical advice questions, which is unethical and dangerous. Comet Tuttle (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no interest or inclination to act unethically or dangerously around medical-related questions at the RD myself. I would just like to see WP's primary purpose as a free online encyclopedia be as appropriately and fully served here as possible. That purpose should always be served as well as it can be within the reasonable limits of established policy.

If a visitor is interested for any reason in understanding a medical-related issue better, he or she should be welcome to pursue that interest by reading wikipedia articles about it. We can answer questions that do not require making a diagnosis of, prognosis of, or treatment-suggestion for a actual, living person (the visitor, a relative of the visitor, a celeb, etc). And we, as WP editors, ought to answer such questions whenever possible because providing information is generally speaking what we are here for!

The current template message advises medical-question-askers to explain "what they meant" if they feel that what they really wanted to know doesn't necessarily, in their view, need to be phrased in such a way that we can't answer it. If what they want to ask about can be phrased in a way that does not require that we diagnose-prognose-treat something but just recommend an article of potential interest to them -- then we should help them to do so! WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Providing information about medical questions is fine, but rephrasing advice questions in order to comply with our policy is out of bounds. In these scenarios, the original poster is just trying to get medical advice, and we end up giving it, essentially, which is wrong. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The proper policy referent here is wp:NOTHOWTO - wikipedia is a reference encyclopedia, not a 'how to' manual. This goes doubly for medical questions. we should not be telling people 'how to' diagnose their own illnesses any more than we should be telling them 'how to' cure the illnesses they think they have. Doing so is irresponsible. If there is no way to answer a question without engaging in some form of diagnosis, no matter how mild, the question should be removed.

I'm not worried about the legal ramifications of this (I'm not going to be the one getting sued if that happens, and the foundation can handle legal crap). I'm worried that we - through our ignorance, our arrogance, a misplaced joke, a misunderstood description - might convince someone they have a wart when in fact they have skin cancer, or convince them they have skin cancer when in fact they have a wart, either of which can have dire consequences. Any poster who is worried enough about a condition to be asking for advice about it should see a doctor (or at least visit a site like WebMD that has put some time and effort into giving reasonable and responsible medical opinions). We are not respectable enough to be giving people advice on things that might lead to their death.

In practical terms, is someone asks "I have plantar warts, I think. what do I do?" we can direct them to the plantar wart article and close the thread without further comment. if someone says "I have these bumps on my feet. what are they?" we ought to close the thread as asking for medical advice or link them to other web resources. Even if you're sure that those are plantar warts, you should close it anyway, because you are not in a position to make a proper and appropriate differential diagnosis.

I understand that this is something that people will play fast and loose with - the urge to make a simple diagnosis is strong and not unreasonable. But if another editor intervenes and deletes the thread, let it go and move on. The 'no medical advice' rule should be interpreted conservatively, so if there's the dimmest, remotest sense in which it qualifies as asking for medical advice, that editor was correct to remove it. we do not need to have these endless arguments about it every time someone feels that whatever minor diagnosis they made should be an exception to the rule. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

(to CT) Well, that's one reasonable assumption that could be made about what an OP may be trying to get. Very few people out there, though, believe that Wikipedia is a medical doctor. If they are asking a question at WP instead of in a doctor's office, they obviously aren't really looking for what they would get in a doctor's office (and we can allow for some cultural and socioeconomic differences but if they can use the internet they probably know what a doctor does and where they can go to see one if that's what they need done). What they are looking for at WP is an article at a free online encyclopedia that generally describes something that may or may not be of personal and immediate interest to them. Generally, what they need to do is be reminded that they may need medical attention if they are asking such a question, told that we cannot provide that, and then ideally have some relevant article recommended to them that might be of interest to them with the caveat that the reading of it should not be confused with getting the medical attention they may need to get. In other words, they need help rephrasing their question to be consistent with our policy (which they are probably just unfamiliar with in any detail) and then they need a brief, appropriate, wp-legal response that helps them find an article or two on their topic of interest. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No. All of the above is just a circuitous way of saying it's OK to diagnose a problem. Providing links to articles that may be "on their topic of interest" is itself providing a diagnosis. See Ludwigs2's third paragraph above. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we should just clarify the wording: The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) questions that require medical diagnosis, request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet forum dedicated to such questions." that removes the whole troublesomely interpretable 'advice' thing. and if we have a list of medical/legal web forums, we could link that here to give people someplace better to go. --Ludwigs2 20:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice has

"Consider leaving a note on the user talk page of the person who posted the question, explaining that we cannot offer medical advice. This may be accomplished using a suitable template (such as {{subst:RD medremoval}}) or a personalized message. Encourage the poster to direct their medical questions to their physician, pharmacist, parents, or guardian. Where appropriate, offer links to suitable resources. This may include internal wikilinks or external websites. Be extremely careful not to offer a diagnosis in this way. If the poster has identified their place of residence, contact information for local health professionals or hotlines may be provided."

That's fine by me. That's what I will do. And if in response the user asks me on his or her talk page if it would be okay to ask the question in some other way that would be acceptable at the RD, I'll tell that person what I think about that consistent with WP policy as I understand it. If I am ever in error in doing so, I trust that you or someone else will call my attention to that and explain it to me. Right now, I am unaware of any WP guideline that says a question cannot be rephrased to meet policy criteria, re-posted to the RD, and then responded to accordingly in that now RD-acceptable form. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A bunch of hooey

I should point out that thanks to the efforts of the unanswerers, we now have general questions like the current "Can acid reflux irritate the tonsil?" Because no specific information can be provided, the result is that people answer these questions very generally, with less knowledge and less concern for the potential impact on a human being. All your attempts to "protect" Wikipedia and/or readers (if that is really the goal, of which I'm skeptical) only make it more likely that some harmful event will ensue. And no doubt you'll continue to use this as excuse to try to ban more and more - someone already put up his little warning even on a question that general, and experience shows that little warnings turn into snide removals.

Now if you browse Yahoo Answers ([19]), it offers 26 main categories, of which one is Health. And if you open it up, it is filled with such a pathetic horde of petitioners as one rarely sees outside of films about medieval kings or the physical geography of Hell. "How to get rid of pin-worms in humans without medicine?", "Beautifully Imperfect sometimes when i put my right hand on my neck head ect it hurts?", "Losing control, emitionally TotrTured 19YRS?", "can xanax test positive for methamphetamine on a drug test?", "what is the difference between alzheimers and dementia?", "Sharp Upper Chest pain?", "Is this my period? I'm 13 and are not getting a regular one yet?" (these are entries #4 to #10 on the page I got by browsing above). So somebody thinks it's not illegal to discuss this sort of thing.

Now maybe this is the sort of task that can only be done by copyrighted private sources. Maybe it's a fair trade-off to donate your answer to become the copyrighted property of some corporation forever and ever and ever and ever, in exchange for the knowledge that if it's their property they'll try to defend it from lawyers and liars. Techno-feudalism, I'd call it. Maybe it's better to answer a question wondering if your answer might drop behind a paywall in five years than to answer it knowing that some vandalistic policy, or abuse thereof, will delete it in five minutes. Maybe this is true for everything on Wikipedia. But you know what? For now I say it isn't! I say that people had faith that things were better than that when they started this encyclopedia, and it paid off, and just because the deletionists are at the door doesn't change the fact that this is a project that can know better and do better. And I say it's time to stand up to the less-than-useless responders and claim the right of Wikipedia to do what well-known commercial sites do — only, to do it better! Wnt (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has said it is illegal to answer medical advice questions. We have said repeatedly, if you would take the trouble to read the responses, that it is unethical, and it breaches our no-medical-advice policy. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If it's only a matter of ethics and policy, then no one should say that "Wikipedia cannot answer this question", but "Wikipedia will not answer this question".

I would say that any ethics that tell people they can't point people with an illness to an article about the illness are wrong ethics.

I would even say that if Wikipedia regulars did offer an actual diagnosis, not just information, it would still be ethical if it was better than what competitors like Yahoo Answers and various other talk forums would do.

I would say that the policy does not prohibit people from telling questioners about relevant articles, nor responding to specific descriptions of symptoms in the question by mentioning what these are in medical terminology, or referring to articles about conditions which cause those symptoms, provided only that they don't actually diagnose the condition by saying that "this is what you have" rather than "this condition sounds similar to the symptom XXX you mentioned". Wnt (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, you would perhaps benefit from having two medical doctors in your immediate family. They never say "this is what you have", their entire thought process is based around "sounds similar to", then they prescribe a treatment designed to address the diagnosis. They proceed on the assumption that they are right but also watch carefully to spot when they've misdiagnosed. "This condition sounds similar..." draws a conclusion that is not within your purview to draw. People have a reasonable expectation that answers here will make a modicum of sense and have some genuine expertise behind them, a random editor choosing a semi-random set of articles to link in response to a personal health question makes no sense to me. Franamax (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

But, Franamax, you do understand that the guideline which I quote directly above does say that one may provide helpful internal and external links to someone who has asked a question that has been removed from the RD according to that same guideline, right?

CT, I think the suggestion that to do so in a helpful non-diagnostic way is somehow "unethical" is a very unwarranted and unhelpful assumption of bad faith. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want somewhere like Yahoo Answers, with Yahoo Answers standards, join Yahoo Answers. We are not Yahoo Answers. Anyone giving medical advice on Yahoo Answers is also likely to do far more harm than good (much, much more based on what I've seen), but that is for that community to discuss. You say "any ethics that tell people they can't point people with an illness to an article about the illness are wrong ethics."? Could you show us your wonderful omnipotent machine that can magically diagnose people from their posts here? I'm sure many people would be delighted that diagnosis is now easily, fast and reliable, and from only a vague dscription! How useful. Given that we are already happy to point people with a diagnosis to relevant articles, this will fit in nicely, although we still wouldn't offer treatment advice. Or do you mean "any ethics that tell people they can't point people with an illness who are naive/inexperienced/in denial enough to ask here rather seek a professional diagnosis to an article that contains something an uninformed lay person happens to have heard of which subjectively sounds like it might fit the vague description are "wrong" ethics"? Because then I think we have a difference of ethical systems. If the OP you tried to send to the plantar warts article really did have them, they are someone who doesn't recognise a verruca, has not discussed it with anyone who would recognise a verruca (most people, surely), and had kept quiet about it for years: combine this with the sort of naivety necessary to have asked the question here as blatantly as they did, and the unwillingness/inability to read and follow instructions this implies, and you have a very vulnerable person who really needs to speak face-to-face with someone trained and able to guide them in treatment. Even if your diagnosis was absolutely, 100%, no complications correct, it would discourage them from seeking actual medical assistance, which (by virtue of them asking here) they should seek. Thus, it does harm. Once you add in that you are not actually able to offer anything close to a safe diagnosis, it gets worse. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To tell the truth, yeah I read all that guideline and policy stuff long ago (and wrote the first draft of one) but have mostly stopped. It's much easier to take a little more reading time and get a sense of what the community is actually thinking. I try not to let any particular present wording get in the way of what I think is the right thing for the 'cyclo. What you are talking about looks a lot to me like an end-run around the "rules" and I'm not going to condone that. A whole bunch of pretty smart people have already been over this ground, I respect and largely agree with their prior conclusions. There is no particular rights-infringement or discrimination going on here, just the usual debate on what is acceptable. As noted above, we exist here at the Desks on sufferance of the wider community. It is up to us to stay on the conservative side of the issues. If you want to revise the guidelines to reflect actual practice (or your desired change to actual practice), the guideline talk page and WP:VPR are good places to start looking for clarification and consensus for changes - or just be BOLD and try it. And please god don't start up with "assumptions of bad faith", you will ruin my happy place. I wrote a thing about that too.) Franamax (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, Franamax, I do not personally have any history with this issue. The guidelines (thanks for helping to write them) are there for people in my position. The problem for people like me who walk into a discussion around a long-standing heatedly-contested issue that it is easy to be misidentified as being a partisan on one side of that dispute or another. I just got here. I didn't bring any emotional baggage about it with me because until very recently it has been a complete non-issue for me. I just want to understand what the policy is and how to effectively apply it in both letter and spirit. That's all I am doing here, and I'm finding that a bit difficult actually. You suggest that I "be bold and try it" – try what? Apply the guideline as well as I can given what I can understand of it? Okay. And I trust you to correct me if I'm wrong. I really do not think that I am fighting the fight here that you and others are fighting. Does it seem otherwise to you and/or others? If so, I'd be happy to clarify (or have clarified for me) any point of confusion about that, just let me know... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm as close to dead-certain as I could ever be that your motives are good here. I suppose my core objection is that you have been extended several invitations to read back through the talk archives to research this and I've seen no sign yet that you've done so. For instance, I've yet to see you couch your points with "I've read the discussion [WT:RD|here] and I find the consensus view expressed then has missed this important aspect". You appear to wish a de novo discussion on the basic issues, but really it's not unreasonable to ask you to do the background research yourself. If there is one core requirement at the desks, it is know what you are talking about. It's not an emotional issue, except to the extent that it becomes difficult to ask someone to read archives then begin to suspect they may have no intention of doing so and will continue to comment as if they are possessed of a new perspective that no-one has ever previously considered. I don't want to accuse you of anything here, don't get me wrong - but I would feel more comfortable if you showed some indication of having reviewed previous visits to this topic. Franamax (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I really do understand that this topic has a very long and archived history. If I had the time and a good reason to do so, I'm sure I'd be happy to read through all of it. But I don't the have time right now to read everything on this topic that you folks have written over the years. For my purposes, it would be nice if I could just read the policy and try to apply that as best I can as I go along, like I do with most other things at WP.

My involvement in this present discussion started out with my agreeing with, and taking as a good example, the application by Red Act of the RD-removal template. Then Wnt came along, and things became less clear to me. I tried to reason through comments and actions by others, asking questions about the correctness of my reasoning and about where to find clear formal statements of policy concerning what did not seem clear to me. Along the way, I got some fairly pointed and opinion-like feedback and not much in the way of clear, direct answers.

I have no problem not giving medical advice here if I am asked by an RD visitor to do so. But there are some things I can see doing that seem to me now, in my RD naivete, not to be diagnosing-prognosing-treating but rather just "here's an article related to your question" the same way I would about any other question – and that general notion of mine seems to be very wrong for some reason! Now, I think I can be common-sensical about that, and don't really care too much if I have to adjust my common-sense to accommodate the consensus reached on this issue after all the backwards-and-forwards over it that I have not been involved in and probably will not have time to read through. But, when I try to say, "well, does such and such make sense? the policy says this or that -- is that right?" what I get is "YOU CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT READ THROUGH ITS ENTIRE HISTORY." And I'm like, "huh?"

Red Act did the right thing. After all this, that's still about the only thing that seems clear to me. And I am beginning to lose interest in finding out what happens next here, to tell you the truth... WikiDao ☯ (talk) 03:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't honestly think that the history is all so useful. I see that there are many sentiments agreeing with mine in the RD guideline archives, e.g. under Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Archive_5#Examples of "legitimate" medical and legal questions removed from guidelines, Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Archive_4#What_is_this_bollocks.3F, Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Archive_3#Being_honest, and (by far the best put) Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Archive_1#Deletionism_on_the_Reference_Desk. But what citing such things is supposed to prove, I can't say. Now there is one I'll bring up, Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/guidelines/Archive_1#Where_do_we_stop.3F a question I had myself, but it was never really answered except that "medical advice is the most common".

So I'll just ask on my own, now that Comet Tuttle has admitted that there are no legal reasons to prohibit medical advice, as demonstrated by Yahoo Answers (which I do despise, by the way, but something's always better than nothing): What distinguishes "medical and legal advice" from any other? We could be giving terrible, terrible plumbing advice, causing no end of trouble. Or bad advice about doing amateur chemical analysis at home.

My feeling, my honest, honest feeling, is that the medical industry very rigorously maintains an artificial scarcity in the U.S. with regulations on medicines and physicians, which are intended to block entry to the profession. I feel like their well-documented hostility to all sites on the Web that give medical information is rooted in a fear of competition and also a fear that patients will learn what they need to know to start realizing when they've been mistreated. I think that this persistent lobbying creates an "ethics" that it is wrong to inform people about these issues, even as pharmaceutical companies have carte blanche to blast them with television ads that give them the precise checklist of symptoms they need to say they have at the office in order to get the expensive proprietary medicine. I think that this factor overwhelms all others; that the goal is to keep the patient "barefoot and pregnant" with whatever cash cow the Fourth Horseman has set aside for him. That the patient's welfare is not even a factor, except as a post hoc justification. And that the lawyers have a similar lobby. And that the restrictions here represent solely the power of these lobbies and the "ethics" of their own enrichment. Wnt (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

• I do not agree, Wnt. And I do not think anyone who holds such a view should be giving anyone any medical or legal advice at any venue. There is a reason medical doctors are required to be highly qualified at what they do, and it is not so they can get rich off of a population that they have conspired to keep ignorant and dependent on medical knowledge that could somehow be freely available to all without the need for medical school, etc. I don't think that sort of thing at all, and I can see why people's patience with this discussion might be a bit short if that's the sort of thing that a "common-sense" approach is up against here. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Your mind's obviously made up, Wnt, so I won't try to change it. But I can tell you that I've never, ever seen any evidence that pressure from any medical or legal lobbying efforts has ever been applied (let alone had an effect) on our Reference Desk guidelines or policies. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, no one here doubts your good faith effort to help people. Why else would we all be spending our time answering these questions? We like to feel useful and it probably strokes some neglected part of our egos. However, just reading the list of questions asked at Yahoo Answers was frankly terrifying. It is certainly an indictment of the medical system that people can't seem to get the answers they need and instead resort to an online forum. But there's no way I would want this ref desk to turn into that kind of mess, even if it would be heroic to try to help all those people. Actually looking more closely at those questions, there are some that we could reasonably answer such as "can xanax test positive for methamphetamine on a drug test?" and "what is the difference between alzheimers and dementia?" -- these are both answerable with references. This isn't about what is "illegal" or whose property the answers are. It simply comes down to the basic premise that by virtue of the vast electronic chasm between us and the OP, we are not qualified to answer a question that requires us to give a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment: we simply do not and cannot have enough information. The irony is that people who are qualified to answer medical questions understand that to do so would be irresponsible (and possibly unethical or illegal depending on the jurisdiction) while those who are not qualified to answer medical questions don't recognize the implicit danger of doing so. This is the reason for the policy and it is the established consensus. Of course, this does not prevent us from pointing people to articles about a condition they have questions about, or even answering questions about medical topics, provided that doing so does not imply that we are giving them a diagnosis to explain a symptom. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I maintain that providing simple information is not the same as making a diagnosis. I'm not claiming that we can diagnose conditions here. But I am saying that we can spray some articles and links and references at the questioner, one or more of which might prove useful to him. Wnt (talk) 03:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out as well that Yahoo Answers works by:

1. someone asking a question
2. a bunch of people giving (often contradictory, unsupported and unevaluated) responses
3. the 'best answer' is chosen by the person who originally asked the question (which by definition is the person least qualified to choose a best answer)
4. this answer is then presented to the internet universe at large as the correct answer (meaning that it will always have a high standing in yahoo search results) for anyone who has a similar question.

If actual medicine worked this way, we'd all still be using leeches as a cure for smallpox.

If your main complaint now is the difference between the words "can't" and "won't", then I am happy to go and change that wording. I'm making an edit request to have the wording changed now. the new wording will be:

The reference desk does not answer (and will usually remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or request medical opinions, or seek guidance on legal matters. Such questions should be directed to an appropriate professional, or brought to an internet site dedicated to medical or legal questions.

See the request at Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk/header/howtoask#wording_change_request. --Ludwigs2 23:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes: change the wording: "Wikipedia will not answer...". This ends the debate right there. We as a community have chosen that we will not answer these questions, even though from a teleological point of view, we can; from a legal point of view, we can; from an ethical point of view, we maybe can (depending on our ethics); from a pragmatic point of view, we can diagnose (but the quality of our diagnosis is poor). We will not do any of these things, and we have made our reasons very clear in the relevant policy guidelines. We choose not to answer medical questions, because our community consensus is that we do not want to. People who still want to answer medical advice questions must do so elsewhere, and we implore them to reconsider their reasoning. Nimur (talk) 00:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, me too, that looks like a good proposed change. If I'd thought of it myself I would probably just do it. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a trick. The "does not" to "will not" change is very minor compared to the changes in the body of the message, which were obfuscated by <pre> tags. The whole point of this discussion is that too many things are being removed that don't need to be - the way to "settle it" is not to make more restrictive rules. Wnt (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt: Don't accuse me of impropriety when I am being very clear in what I'm after. I'm not trying to trick anyone, I am explicitly trying to remove the ambiguity of the word 'advice' that you are so explicitly trying to take advantage of. I realize you think that you should have more leeway to make diagnoses and give medical advice; by all measures, though, consensus on the RefDesk is against your position, and it's high time we made the rules specific enough that we can put these silly arguments to rest. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you are always free to go participate on Yahoo Answers if you're really upset about it. --Ludwigs2 05:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undent and note that the proposed change has been implemented [20] by an admin who(m) I personally do not recognize as a "regular", though I don't watch all the desks. Noted here for the record. Franamax (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused

Today I revisited a question I asked a couple of days ago. At the time I am writing this, it can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Rd/s#Thermodynamics_question

When I edited that question, to ask a supplementary question, I was thrown into editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2010_October_15

At the top of that page it says "The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages."

However, the question, as far as I can see, does (still) appear on the "current reference desk pages". I thinik the way this is organised and worded is very confusing. 86.135.26.143 (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

Questions are still displayed for a few days on the main page after being archived, and any edits to the archive will appear on the main page. It's slightly confusing, but reading Wikipedia:Transclusion should help understand what is happening 82.44.55.25 (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The instructions need clarifying. It is presently unclear what I should do if I want to continue the discussion of a transcluded question. Should I edit the archive page on the basis that it is still included on the main page, or should I start a new discussion on the "proper" main page? 86.135.26.143 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC).

If it's a mere continuation, you should probably edit the archived page as long it still appears on the hot desk. Once it's gone, you can still edit the archived page, but hardly anyone will be following it anymore, so at this point you could also start a new question (and you can link to the archived question for context). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) If you try to edit the main page it will take you to the archive page; once the archive page is edited, it will display on the main page. think of transclusion as a kind of teleconferencing; The person you're talking to may be someplace else, but you can interact with them as though they were in the same room. likewise, the transcluded page is located somewhere else in the file system, but whatever you do there is mirrored automatically wherever it is transcluded. --Ludwigs2 20:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Piracy questions

Here, I removed an answer that points the original poster to a place to pirate copyrighted material. These types of requests seem (in my mind) to be increasing and we should not answer them other than to say "We don't help with this type of request, sorry." Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The second answer you removed about DVD region codes wasn't pointing to copyright material, it was just explaining how to play dvds bought from different countries by using a second dvd player from that region. I also don't think the generic warning about wikipedia not helping people pirate should be used in this instance, since the OP specifically stated they wanted a "copyright-legal" way to watch these programs 82.44.55.25 (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Suppose having a DVD player from a different region were a copyright offense (and for all I know it is —— there could be something on the 17th page of the shrink wrap agreement that says you have to re-regionalize it every time you cross the border). Is there anything in the Reference Desk guidelines that rules out questions about how a crime is committed? I mean, as far as I know we can generally answer questions about making bombs and growing marijuana, can't we? I'm not suggesting anybody join a conspiracy mind you, but there are articles about how these things are done. Wnt (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly disagree with the removal. You may not help people pirate copyrighted material, but I think it's a little presumptuous for you to speak for everyone who contributes. If we're going to have a "we don't help people commit crimes" rule, we should discuss it before we implement it (to be clear, I would oppose such a rule). Buddy431 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Helping people commit crimes makes you an accessory to the crime and subject to legal action. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal advice, really? Has our sports expert been taking night classes at law school? I think that I would be well within my legal rights in my jurisdiction to admit the existence of certain works being available on certain sites, even if the sites in question are not hosting the content legally. Maybe you live in a jurisdiction where it's possible to get into trouble by repeating such information, but we're all responsible only for the content that we post. Like I said before, homosexuality is illegal in some jurisdictions. Using encryption software is illegal in some jurisdictions. We (collectively; you're free to do whatever you want) don't withhold information just because someone, in some jurisdiction, might get in trouble for something that they do with that information. If we want to make a policy that no one can mention any site that violates any copyrights, we need to discus it before Comet Tuttle, or anyone else, decides unilaterally to implement such a policy. Buddy431 (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

No, telling you not to break the law is not legal advice. Telling you "go ahead, don't worry", that's legal advice. I wonder if you know that articles are not allowed to reference sites that are suspected to be violating copyright. There's no reason to assume that the ref desk is allowed to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that articles are not supposed to link to sites that are known to violate copyright. Actually, we're allowed to link to sites that are known to violate copyright (like Youtube and The Pirate Bay), it's only linking to a specific work that's in violation of copyright that isn't allowed. It's perfectly acceptable to mention sites that are known to violate copyright. And FYI, I consider telling me that a particular action is illegal, and telling me not to do it, to be legal advice Buddy431 (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain why you also removed 174.31.221.70's post? APL (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that aside, I'm not sure I agree with any of the removal. It was a bad answer because the guy clearly asked for a legal source of the show, but simply mentioning that a torrent of a currently popular show exists is pretty much just stating the obvious.

I don't care much though, because the answer about piracy that got removed was stupid to begin with. APL (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I take it you're referring to my answer. As of now, it and the answer about DVDs have been restored by Wnt, although I'm not sure how long that will last. Regarding the main issue, I'm surprised how much woolly and just plain wrong thinking is taking place upthread here. I want to make two points, which may be obvious to most but nevertheless bear repetition:

1. Torrent sites do not by themselves violate copyright. They don't host the media files, they only host the torrent files that tell the software where to go to get the media files. A torrent file is not a copyright violation. It may lead people to content that is, but then again so does Google. The people who are in violation of copyright are those who are seeding the media files, and linking to a torrent site does not point to those people.
2. I would not have told the OP about the torrent site if the specific shows he wanted had been available on DVD. But they aren't, and that changes everything. Let me make an analogy. A questioner asks: "I went out last night and I missed the latest episode of my favourite TV show. A friend of mine taped it off air [or tivo'd it, or whatever it is that kids do nowadays]. Is it OK if I borrow it off him?" Such borrowing is essentially no different from what is happening when a show is distributed via Bittorrent. As I wrote in my original answer, recording a programme off air is in theory a copyright violation. But it has been tolerated by the TV companies ever since the invention of the VCR. --Viennese Waltz 07:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't give legal advice and your answers here show some of them. In fact plenty of countries have recognised exemptions for time shifting (whether specific or generic but intepreted by courts to apply to time shifting), so recording a programme off air with the intention of time shifting (with the intention of keeping it for ever is fairly different) is often not a copyright violation despite your claim above it 'technically' is. Lending it to your friend may be of course. And if a person asks us if it is okay for them to lend it to a friend, the best answer we can give is that it may be a copyright violation. If they want ethical advice, there are plenty of places they can ask, we aren't one of them.

Also you are mistaken that torrent sites never violate copyright. In fact many countries have issues like contributory infringement which means things are far less clear cut, particularly when the site is shown to assist and encourage copyright violations. The successful legal cases and the fact that many torrent sites avoid hosting in certain countries show as much. In the US for example, it generally accepted both Google and torrent sites hosted there must in fact obey the DMCA which is generally taken to mean they should respond to a takedown claim. Google obviously does, and many torrent sites in the US do infact as well although they often give minimal cooperation. The fact that they do show some basic cooperation should show to you that it's far less clear cut then you seem to think.

Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Viennese Waltz, your point one is a bit disingenuous. Torrent files are essentially glorified hyperlinks. We're talking about the problems of linking someone to an illegal file for the specific purpose of downloading it. What's the difference between linking to a file and linking to a link to a file? APL (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't link to an illegal file directly on here. In respect of questions about song lyrics, for example, I've deleted other responses that have linked to copyvio lyrics sites. What I'm saying is, firstly, that a media file of a TV show is not necessarily a copyvio (see the discussion below). Secondly, I remain unconvinced that a torrent site is illegal just because it links people to an illegal file. Google provides links to copyvio lyrics sites and Youtube videos and I don't hear anyone saying those links should be taken down. --Viennese Waltz 17:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While not specifically about lyrics and YouTube videos: They do have a page of instructions to follow to get them to remove search results for copyvio content and there has been at least one related lawsuit that I'm aware of. VernoWhitney (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of the more general point, I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Directing a person to a specific torrent site for specific shows for comments from those more used to dealing with copyright problems on wikipedia. I do have some concerns we're getting rather borderline to potential contributory infrigement that we disallow here (I should mention that from my experience, linking to a specific torrent file that lacks the copyright holders permission whether explicit or via license would almost definitely be disallowed on wikipedia whatever you may argue about it not violating copyright because site hosting the torrent file isn't hosting the content, note that it should be clear we go well beyond what we're legally required to do when it comes to copyright issues). While it's not a specific link to a torrent, it is sending someone to a specific site with specific torrents in mind. If it was just a generic mention of the existance of torrents things would be different. On the other hand, it's not unheard of people may be discussing something and someone may suggest they look on Youtube even if the video there is likely a copyvio.

As with others, the region code thing seems fine, in plenty of countries parallel importation of DVDs is perfectly fine (sometimes even tested in law) particularly when done by consumers. Circumventing the region codes is therefore often also fine, and in fact in some cases DVD region codes are considered potentially illegal themselves. I don't know about the specifics in the US, the DMCA complicates things but particularly if you aren't hacking, I think it's definitely not clear cut that there's anything wrong with it (see [21] for example and perhaps [22] and [23]).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm here in response to your post at WT:CP, and my input is that yes, knowingly directing someone to a means to violate copyright (even if it's not linked and even if the torrent site itself isn't the one infringing copyright) may be considered contributory copyright infringement (and thus in my opinion it should be discouraged, since as you say we go well beyond the legal requirements when it comes to copyright). If you want to firmly establish whether it is or is not illegal you would have to take it to court in whatever jurisdiction(s) is/are relevant due to how many layers removed we are from the actual infringement and the particular context of the comment, but I don't think it can be ruled out. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but why do you assume that downloading a copy of a TV show via Bittorrent is in itself a copyright violation? Nil Einne helpfully linked to our article on time shifting which shows that the courts in the US have held time shifting to be fair use and not an infringement of copyright. My whole argument in this thread, which no-one has yet rebutted to my satisfaction, has been that there is no essential difference between time shifting and downloading for personal use. But that is of course something for the courts to decide, and until there is case law on the matter the most we can say is that it may be a copyright infringement. Which is not sufficient reason, in my view, to remove posts that point users towards torrent sites. --Viennese Waltz 12:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of the difference is that BitTorrent is not just downloading for personal use, the process also involves making the data further available to others, which is what got a guilty verdict for an individual infringer in Capitol v. Thomas (not using BitTorrent, but the technical effect is the same). We agree that the most we can say is that it may be infringement, and I'm not going to edit war over it if you feel your comment should be restored, but from my understanding of the statutes and case law in light of our Wikipedia:Copyrights policy, it shouldn't be done. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:43, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. The site is up and open on the Internet. How do we get from seeing someone reference a Web site that is apparently legal enough that no one is shutting it down, to this hand-wringing legal advice, complete with various precedents to adapt, that says that it must be illegal? As we see from the legality of Napster versus YouTube, the difference between "right" and "wrong" in the copyright religion is something too aethereal to be understood by sensible men, but certainly it is possible to see a difference between "site up" and "site down". If anyone starts linking to actual copyright violations you'll be able to tell, because they'll be saying, "go to this address and download it fast"... Wnt (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Surely you must be aware that the simple fact that a site is on the internet does not require nor imply that the site and its contents are legal. You may also have noticed that I never asserted it "must be illegal", just that it could be. Have a nice day. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well under intellectual property laws, just about anything could be illegal, and probably is, on the wrong day with the wrong judge. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the concern, and I certainly wouldn't want the Entertainment RefDesk to become a BootLeg-TV-Location-Service, It feels a bit silly to forbid mentioning the fact that The Pirate Bay and it's ilk have torrents of almost everything. It's one thing to hunt down a specific file for a question-asker, but just saying "The Pirate bay has got just about every TV show anyone cares about." is about as dangerous a statement "most sports cars can break the speed limit" or "Stolen goods are often fenced at pawn shops."

Worse, unless there's a blanket ref-desk gag order on even mentioning bit torrent, It once again becomes a game to phrase your questions the 'right' way. Could we answer "Where do criminals find torrents of popular TV shows?" but not "Where can I find torrents of Doctor Who?"

(For what it's worth, over the last couple years I've answered a couple of questions by mentioning less than reputable sources for files. I always do so by linking to the Wikipedia article on the site in question. I figure that the question-answer will at least be fully informed.) APL (talk) 14:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with APL's sentiments in general. But there's a bit of a jump in one line of reasoning. Compare: "pawn shops often sell stolen goods," as opposed to "you can buy stolen property at Tom's Pawn Shop on 3rd Street." Equivalently, "numerous websites host ddl links and bit torrent trackers for popular TV shows", as opposed to "The Pirate Bay is a widely-known torrent tracker that hosts most popular TV shows." Nimur (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your logic. General answers should never be an issue, it's the "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright" (to quote WP:C) that crosses the line. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nimur, fair enough. You're correct that my comparison is bad. APL (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. How can someone think it's wrong to tell people about The Pirate Bay when he himself does so simply as an example? And would people really object if people were publicly protesting that "Tom's Pawn shop sells stolen goods", when the police allow it, or should they see it as a form of transparency? The point is: the site is public. Its reputation is public. Our answers are public. There's no skulduggery going on here. We should describe the world as it is. Wnt (talk) 20:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say I thought it was "wrong" - I said there was a flaw in the analogy. My stance is that Wikipedia is not censored. But the Reference Desk holds high standards for the external sites we link to, and we should maintain our high standards by choosing carefully where we refer our OPs. Nimur (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt, wherever did you get the idea that this site is "public"? Yes, it is "published" and that's as far as it goes. This site is owned by a privately owned charitable foundation. It sets only a few hard and fast rules, expects it's editors to establish appropriate community standards among themselves, and I'm pretty sure will act swiftly if misbehaviour surfaces within those various communities. We are not here to pursue notions of what "public" means, we are here to be an encyclopedia. Franamax (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

By "the site" I assume Wnt meant The Pirate Bay. Matt Deres (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe I misinterpreted that, thank you. Same arguments apply though, only now we're talking about people still appealing their prison sentences in Sweden aren't we? I haven't followed the case since the intial judgement, was there a finding of not guilty? Franamax (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Wnt: Are you sure there aren't some answers which even you agree we should never give even if they just 'describe the world as it is'. For example, would you really find it okay for someone to direct an OP who specifically says they are looking to have sex with a child, to countries known for Child sex tourism? Or worse, specific 'brothels' and people? Perhaps including links to sites that offer advice including stuff like avoiding being found out or capture. (Ignoring for now such an OP is almost definitely a troll and foundation policy in that regard.) If you do find offering such advice on the RD acceptable, well you're obviously entitled to your opinion but I'm not sure how many others there are on the RD who agree with you. Nil Einne (talk) 07:46, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Which exactly are you saying would be wrong: to include a link to child sex tourism response to a question about child sex tourism? Or that the article itself contains such a list of countries? Or that the original source for that article put out a publicly accessible report that made it possible for someone here to cite it? Because the Wikipedia search engine freely does the first thing. The actual article as currently written does the second. And without the third, how would anyone ever begin to address the problem?

The truth is, if someone tells one pedophile which country to get tourist brochures for, there will be a hundred other readers who will get steamed about it, and if not offered the cop-out of censorship, they'll be driven to take sufficient countervailing political action that more than one of the thousands of other sex tourists will find himself frustrated. The net effect of freedom of information will always be positive, even when it is used with sinister intentions. Wnt (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am saying it would be wrong to direct a paedophile who has said they are seeking out information on where to have sex with children to info on where to have sex with children. There's a difference between providing encylopaedic knowledge to all and sundry which we do, and providing specific knowledge to someone who has admitted they want to do something most people find disgusting, and is illegal potentially even in their home country. I'm not sure what 'political action' you're talking about. I'm quite sure the vast majority of RD contributors are already well aware of the existence of child sex tourism, we're generally a well informed bunch. But it's not something easy to solve. Plenty of countries already have laws which punish people who go to other countries for the purpose of child sex tourism, showing it's hardly something people aren't trying to deal with. In fact this 'political action' may be a shutdown of wikipedia in some countries or censorship of it, which hardly seems to be a 'net positive'. (More likely of course wikipedia would get some major bad media attention, if the foundation really didn't intervene we would lose many donors and editors and eventually wikipedia may die.) If someone provides info on websites which provide help to paedophiles to a paedophile, if we're lucky that website may be shut down which I would agree as a net positive. But there's a far chance it won't (if it's survived for this long there must be a reason, of course it could be a Tor hidden service or Freenet or something making shut down rather difficult). In any case, I don't quite get how the shut down of a website providing info counts as a 'net positive' in your eyes since it's effectively shutting down freedom of information. The truth is if we really provide help to a genuine paedophile seeking to have sex with a child and if the foundation or community didn't intervene, the only likely effect other then what may happen to wikipedia (which seems irrelevant) would either be this person being arrested, which I admit isn't that unlikely since if they're dumb enough to ask on the RD, they're dumb enough to get caught, or the person successfully raping a child. You may find that okay in the spirit of freedom of information, but I don't. It isn't going to inspire RD regulars, already well aware of child sex tourism to do anything more then whatever they are already doing. The vast majority of people in countries where sex tourism is rife don't even have the potential to read it, since they don't have internet access and probably don't understand English, and if they do read it, all it's likely to do is convince them that the problem of sex tourism isn't really something they can do anything about, if rich people in developed countries are happy to help someone seeking to rape a child in their country including providing specific info on how to evade capture etc, and no one bats an eyelid. Note that while we sometimes do lecture people when they suggest they're going to do something bad, it's not really allowed per policy, and it's not something we should be doing so it's not like people should be telling that person they're a disgusting pervert. At best, we could perhaps direct them to see a counsellor but even that is fairly borderline if the person didn't in any way suggest they want to get help, while it's likely no one will care in this instance, we do tend to get complaints when we offer people advice which they didn't indicate they want and I presume you will agree we shouldn't be providing info that wasn't asked for. P.S. I also don't think the death of wikipedia is a good thing, but perhaps you do (and sorry but you really have no idea of how the world works if you think there isn't going to be a strong net negative effect to wikipedia if we start providing direct assistance on request including linking to sites providing info on evading capture and good 'brothels' and whatever other stuff that may help to paedophiles seeking to have sex with children). Fortunately the foundation doesn't either which does mean this is a moot point, but I think we both know that. P.P.S. I acknowledge this discussion is somewhat getting OT. It's clear Wnt has his/her views, which don't allow restricting info for any reason no matter what harm it may cause to others and even when it's clear there is very unlikely to be a net positive. However it doesn't yet seem anyone is in a rush to join him/her which is IMHO somewhat of a good thing, since it means we mostly agree we have to join the line somewhere, the question then becomes where. That was of course the reason I used this extreme example. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The question you initially used as the example was simply about which countries were most open to sex tourism, which as I said is in the article right now. I didn't put it there — that's just the normal operation of Wikipedia. The other examples you just gave might run afoul of different policies, or laws, depending on the circumstances, but it's too much to go into. I very much doubt the person asking such a question would clearly self-identify as a pedophile, especially considering Wikipedia policy. But what you seem to be saying is that you claim an unlimited right to censor any question you decide is harmful — even though it is not illegal — even though it isn't even RefDesk policy. You can just make up your bans as you go along and, evidently, get them written into the policy without significant discussion. This is altogether contrary to the way that things are done elsewhere in Wikipedia, and when the principles come into conflict, Wikipedia's core pillar must stand. Wnt (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry what you are you talking about? I specifically said For example, would you really find it okay for someone to direct an OP who specifically says they are looking to have sex with a child, to countries known for Child sex tourism? Or worse, specific 'brothels' and people? Perhaps including links to sites that offer advice including stuff like avoiding being found out or capture. in my first question. You are welcome to re-read it if you have any doubts that I properly copied and pasted from my first response (I acknowledge I did edit my response several times, but this was long before you replied so I presume this was not an issue).

As I said, I am solely talking about a hypothetical issue. I've already acknowledged in my first response such a user is almost definitely a troll and we have to ignore foundation policy in such a scenario. I don't get which other examples you are talking about. I elaborated on what I had said in my second post as well as replied to what you had said, but didn't really offer further examples.

In case it's not clear, I was trying to establish whether you find it acceptable to offer any and all advice to someone seeking to have sex with a child and this is ignoring of foundation policy or the likelihood of trolls. Or for that matter although I didn't specify this earlier, any existing policy. (In other words, I was trying to understand whether you were truly not willing for us to draw the line on offering info to people who request it.)

I don't get where I have claimed "an unlimited right to censor any question you decide is harmful". On the contrary, I am simply saying what others like that we as a community have a right to decide what sort of answers we may give, and it is perfectly acceptable for us as a community to decide not to give information even if it just describes "the world as it is". Precisely where to draw that line is something we should discuss and is what we having been discussing. In particular as I've said before and unlike in my hypothetical example, the RD is not a sovereign state so we do have to consider normal wikipedia policy which includes on copyrights. (As I've already said, I feel the VW response is fairly borderline under our copyright policy.)

P.S. I find it rather unlikely that foundation policy would have much affect on whether some person is going to genuinely ask us for help having sex with a child, the fact is most people are not even going to know it. However as I've said it is very likely people who ask such questions will be trolls simply because you'd have to be rather dumb if on a prominent public website, with the easy risk of identification and without apparently doing any research for yourself (if they had us directing them to our article would be useless) you say you want to have sex with a child and need help finding a way to do so if these sentiments are genuine, particularly since there's a good chance people may provide misinformation when you ask such a question. (And a person who genuinely is that dumb is clearly unlikely to have any knowledge of foundation policy.)

P.P.S. On further consideration perhaps the confusion you have is you didn't appreciate when I said "OP who specifically says they are looking to have sex with a child" and ignoring trolls I literally meant when someone has made it clear they are genuinely looking to have sex with a child and want our help to do so (not sadly our help to seek counselling) and therefore is likely to use this advice if it is good enough and actually go somewhere and rape a child. The specific wording here I may have changed a few times and perhaps in the interest of brevity this wasn't clear enough, if so I apologise. But I was always talking about a situation when we are literally directly trying to help someone who we genuinelly believe wants to have sex with a child do so.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think that this is a red herring. There's a policy WP:Child protection, and while there are certain controversies about it, WP:Harassment covers a case in which someone is actually plotting to abuse a child on the Wiki. The answering of a question in this case is actually irrelevant - a questioner would be treated just as harshly for threatening to abuse a child without asking a question, and an answerer would face no more friendly a reception for simply posting an encouragement. That's why the RD guidelines say "The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits", and say nothing about not answering questions about child sex tourism. It actually has nothing at all to do with answering questions.

The reason why this is an important point to make is that my feeling is that there are many degrees of suspicion about whether a poster intends to violate a law, and many opinions about what the law is. I'm reminded of the Kafkaesque politics of American "head shops", which can sell you a water pipe for smoking... "tobacco"... but if an agent gets an answer out of an employee about whether he could smoke marijuana in the pipe, then the whole shop can be prosecuted for selling "drug paraphernalia". I hope that this is a strictly limited violation of freedom of speech that will be fixed conclusively in short order. In any case I don't want to legitimize the same kind of game-playing at Wikipedia. We shouldn't have to look up an editor's userpage, or his previous questions, or mentions about him on the Web, before deciding whether a question can be answered.

Of course, the impact of this is clearer when we're here on this thread arguing not about heinous crimes but about an underlying allegation of copyright violation, not even a criminal offense but a potential civil liability, when we don't know the licenses owned by the linked site or the "internet radio" type exemptions of its host country, ASCAP type arrangements, etc. In such a case we much more clearly can't assume that the poster is innately a criminal or violating any Wikipedia policy simply by existing or by expressing his opinion. Here only the question is at issue. But again the Refdesk guidelines don't mention the word "copyright", and again for a reason: because public knowledge about how copyrights are violated is not a crime. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)