This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Just to let you know that a gob-smackingly useful thread on the Science desk prompted me to create a Ref Desk thread of the week award -- Dweller 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed a response and my angry reply to it since it does not help the question I originally asked. I have left a message on the users talk page about this.
This was removed
I imagined (wrongly it seems) that it would be patently obvious that a 'prose translation' is not suitable for a factual article on the english language version of wikipedia. I already asked the same question previously but got an equally unhelpful answer and no more. As the question would soon be archived I re-asked it.
I thought it would be clear to all that the current 'english' translation actually makes no sense. Does japanese simply not translate at all? 87.102.6.217 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Not many people have responded to the suggestion to get User:SineBot to monitor the RD. Before we go ahead, one last time, is anyone opposed to this? Nil Einne 13:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion could the bot automatically sign for me, so instead of doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.84.56 ( talk) 14:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC) It does this: 87.102.84.56 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) and saves me any embarressment and a little typing. 87.102.84.56 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the necessary cat to all the pages. Possibly we could have added it to the header but that would likely have caused other problems. I added it to the top before the header so it wouldn't accidently get archived. I also had to put it in line with the header or it added a whitespace line. Initially I added a white space between the headercfg and the cat but I stopped when it caused problems with the languages desk with a unicode template. I didn't bother to correct the earlier ones but as there is no ill effects as far as I can tell it doesn't really matter. Nil Einne 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this [1] (see number 17) which I've corrected here. I'm lazy to look into it but could it be a bot bug? I note someone mentioned a abortive bot edit [2] so alternatively perhaps that's why. Nil Einne 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one for my "great ideas that are probably never going to happen" file, but I present it anyway, partially in response to User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Thread_of_the_week_award. Dweller presents a great idea. I'd like to suggest it could be made even better by allowing people to vote once on every refdesk post.
This could be implemented by allowing contributors to either "upvote" or "downvote" individual posts on the Reference Desks. The thread of the week for any given ref desk would be the thread with the most upvotes.
For an example of what this might look like in practice, see one website that supports this very feature, indicating both the Best and the Worst, based solely on the vote count. See also Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia and search for "voting on posts".
To prevent abuse, this would have to be restricted to users with a WP account. To prevent chicanery, the votes would be anonymous. All the WP end-users will see is a negative or positive number, reflecting the sum total of "upvotes" and "downvotes".
Although this will probably never happen here, there ya go. dr.ef.tymac 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea - how about if (signed editors) could mark questions as "sound question, unclear, diatribe, flamebate, wrong desk, hasn't searched, etc".. 87.102.18.14 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) That said I'd tend to oppose the idea here since it's more likely to cause problems than solve any... 87.102.18.14 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh. That's a fine mess I've gotten you all into. -- Dweller 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the way Wikipedia develops. Will I live to see the day that abuse of whatever emerges from is reported at ANI? lol. -- Dweller 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear when a great answer has been given to an interesting question and it's worth saving for posterity. I suspect that all we really need to do is to create a page called 'Best of the Ref Desk' (or something like that) and let people edit it in true Wikipedia style. It's going to grow - and it'll doubtless accumulate cruft - and someone will periodically clean it up. It would have a 'discussion' page where people may choose to passionately argue about what should and shouldn't be there - and polls may occasionally happen when there is debate over whether some article should be there or not. But I suspect that in the end, the standards for what makes it into the page will be quirky and that the quality you'll need to have to make it into the page will gradually grow over the years. It is likely (as with most Wikipedia pages) that one or two people will come to informally 'own' the page and keep it alive and relevent. Whether it contains witty (but irrelevent) answers or off-topic (but clever) answers - or merely the ones that helped the OP the most, is anyone's guess. But this way it can evolve and grow into whatever we want it to be.
This approach is taken with lots of other 'Best of' Wikipedia pages such as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Voting adds red tape and is not 'the wikipedia way'. A weekly pick would mean that in some weeks a basically weak choice has to be made because there was nothing better - and on really good weeks, two excellent answers have to fight it out to be included. The 'Benevolent Dictator' model only works when more or less everyone agrees with the dictator - there is no easy way to ensure that we have the right person for the job.
A less formal mechanism would be much nicer. Let's just make a page and let people populate it - it's the WP way.
SteveBaker 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}On page Wikipedia:Reference desk the category
should be changed to
-- Lambiam 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've just checked the Humanities Desk history, as I usually do in the evening, and see a quite legitimate question on Kublai Khan was removed altogether by an anonymous IP, on the grounds that it was a 'homework question' (An answer was also removed). I sincerly hope that the questioner did not notice this, because I cannot imagine anything more discourteous and hurtful. The thread was restored by Lambiam, exercising his usual good sense. I am in favour of the instant removel of obvious trollish questions, and I can just about tolerate a 'we do not do homework' response; but the complete excision of an honest question, homework or not, is for me quite intolerable. I hope you do not think I am making too much of this, but I would not wish to see this action as part of a new pattern. Incidentally, on the matter of trolling, I am beginning to feel that the Haiti and West Africa questions are beginning, ever so slightly, to fall into this category. Several superb answers have been produced, but the same old thing just keeps on rolling along! Love to you all Clio the Muse 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a winner for this week. Well done the Mathematics Desk. (Yes, I can't quite believe it, myself) -- Dweller 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the merits of linking to the Wikipedia-related IRC channel which deals with factual enquiries ( #wikipedia-desk) from the "howtoask" header and possibly other places at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask. All interested users are invited to contribute. GDonato ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The archiving bot just filled in the last of the redlinks (all seven "Sep 2007"s) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. There's room for a few more, but at some point fairly soon we'll have to think about expanding the format in a different dimension. Perhaps we should grow the current block with three more sets of monthly links until it can read "Answered questions, October 2006 – December 2007", and then start a series of twelve-month blocks above it for 2008 and beyond. — Steve Summit ( talk) 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations go to the Miscellaneous Desk for this week's award. Maaaaaarvellous. -- Dweller 10:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. I also updated section 0 to include a link to this page. A.Z. 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This page now has its very own custom edit button for section 0 of the page. --VectorPotential Talk 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, VP, that's a much needed addition. StuRat 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
So, there are a number of frequently asked questions. Should we do something about it? (I believe this is a frequently asked question on this talk page) People usually link to older threads about the same subject when they recall that there has been a question about it before. I was thinking about adding a sub-section to all threads that are about frequently asked about subjects. Something like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003, Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from January 2006.
So say we click on the third link to read the thread from 2006. There would be a similar sub-section there like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003, Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from September 2007.
This way, it would be easy to navigate through all threads about a subject. A.Z. 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Code cleanup done. Some people haven't worked out that a preceding space does this.
Template:Google images may be useful for various threads on the reference desk (I remember one instance when someone didn't know what a milk bag looked like). It is used the same way as Template:Google. A.Z. 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for putting this here but I didn't know where else to put it. I posted on an article and was told I needed to follow the guidelines in how to be recognized as an expert. The person editing my post and removing the materials did not give me a link and did not have a link to their e-mail address. What's that all about? If somebody is going to edit others shouldn't they be required to give a point of contact? I've looked and looked. So where are the guidelines for being recognized as an expert in a field and how to post as an expert? ChaplainSvendsen 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems recently editors have been assuming any question that could be homework is homework. Without any other evidence, they jump on the questioner, saying, "Do your own homework!"
How can we discourage editors from being so jumpy? -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example of a questioner who was jumped on prematurely: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What_is_the_secret_behind_the_success_of_American_agriculture.3F -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm late. Big up the Language Desk. [4] -- Dweller 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[5] I think asking other female editors out is getting beyond things. Humour, yes, but should stay within scope of question.-- martianlostinspace email me 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be polite to tell them, or do we leave them to discover things like that for themselves? Certainly in my early days, I did things all the time that people simply reverted but didn't WP:BITE me on. martianlostinspace email me 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a reference desk in Wikipedia sounds unneeded now that we have Wikiversity. We could just point users to the Wikiversity project instead. What do you think? NerdyNSK 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... although, even supposing the desk was separate from the encyclopedia, there is nothing which prevents answers being used to improve articles in another project - even a wiki rival, for example, Citizendium. In all honesty, I doubt that in practice it is always the case that they are used to improve. I guess tens of articles, with your answers, could have become semi doctoral thesis's/thesii/thesises/thesisisisis, etc, or whatever else the plural of thesis is. I don't suppose you would mind us copying your answers to relevant talk pages? (Of course, I presume this right already exists in that you must have already GDFL'd it, but it is polite to ask anyway.) martianlostinspace email me 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I was playing about with a new analytical tool (See here for example) and thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast some metrics for the desks...
The Miscellaneous desk is the granddaddy of the Ref Desks, being the offshoot of the original desk from 2002. As such it has the most contributions, a whopping 99,000+. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 3666 | 3.7 |
User:DirkvdM | 1595 | 1.6 |
User:Light current | 1517 | 1.5 |
User:Dismas | 1182 | 1.2 |
User:JackofOz | 1019 | 1 |
In the top 20 the most consistent editors are User:MacGyverMagic, User:Tagishsimon and User:Alteripse, all of whom have contributed with regularity since mid 2004. The most sporadic are User:Light current, User:Justanother and User:THB who made over 1000, 800 and 700 edits respectively, in a about a 6 month period, then stopped (for various reasons). Light current also came in with the most edits in a week: 190. Activity on the desk peaked around this time last year, when StuRat, DirkvdM and Light Current were are their editing peak. The page was hitting around 1500 edits a week at that period, and has been declining since then. An honorable mention for User:SteveBaker, who sneaks into the top 20 as the most recently prolific editor: around 600 since February this year.
The Science desk is the second most popular desk and is catching the Misc, it has amassed over 88,000 since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 4885 | 5.5 |
User:Light current | 2614 | 3 |
User:DirkvdM | 1864 | 2.1 |
User:Mac Davis | 1636 | 1.9 |
User:Edison | 1145 | 1.3 |
Many of the same trends described above can be found on this page. The most consistent editors are User:TenOfAllTrades, User:Nunh-huh and Alteripse, all of whom have contributed with regularity since it was created. User:Lambiam joins Light current in sporadic editing here, and User:Ummit and User:Nimur took long breaks from editing, but returned. Light current also notched to a remarkable, and somewhat scary, 330 edits a week at one point, almost double what StuRat managed in second. This desk also peaked around a year ago (hitting 1480 edits/week), and has been on a slowly decreasing trend since.
The Humanities desk comes in third, with over 64,000 since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 3126 | 4.8 |
User:Clio the Muse | 2911 | 4.5 |
User:Loomis51 | 2255 | 3.5 |
User:JackofOz | 1258 | 1.9 |
User:Lambiam | 979 | 1.5 |
There are a good number of editors who have contributed consistently since the page was created, these include StuRat, JackofOz, User:Kainaw User:Nunh-huh, User:Shantavira and User:Mwalcoff. User:Halcatalyst and User:Wakuran edited significantly for a period and then stopped. The obvious specialist on this page is Clio, who had edited consistently at a rate of around 55 edits/week since October 2006 and will soon knock StuRat off the No. 1 spot. Like the others, this desk also peaked around a year ago (hitting 1170 edits/week), it has dropped off a little since then, but is holding steady.
The Language desk comes is the most popular of the, shall we say, less frequented desks. Despite being formed at the same time as Humanities, it has had less than half the activity, about 31,000 edits since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Angr | 1245 | 4 |
User:JackofOz | 1079 | 3.5 |
User:StuRat | 838 | 2.7 |
User:Lambiam | 817 | 2.6 |
User:Wakuran | 780 | 2.5 |
The most consistent contributors are User:Marco polo and JackofOz. Wakuran and User:Greatgavini edited significantly for a period and then stopped and Angr did the opposite, having edited heavily and regularly except for a 6 month break at the end of last year. This desk has the most "new faces" among the top 20 editors by edit, perhaps reflecting its more specialist subject area. The top 5 editors have all peaked at 40-50 edits per week and the page record is 550 edits/week. Unlike the others, the page activity peaked slightly earlier last year, perhaps reflecting Angr's wikibreak, and has since dipped to early 2006 levels again.
The Computing desk is newer still, having accumulated over 21,000 edits since July 2006. The top 5 contributors (excluding bots) are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Froth | 902 | 4.2 |
User:StuRat | 713 | 3.3 |
User:Kainaw | 487 | 2.3 |
User:H2g2bob | 383 | 1.8 |
User:CesarB | 337 | 1.3 |
The most consistent contributors are Froth, StuRat, Kainaw, CesarB and User:Splintercellguy, all of whom have contributed since the page was created. Wakuran and User:Finlay McWalter edited heavily and regularly except for a 4 month break at the beginning of year. User:L has been a significant contributor recently, racking up 210 edits in 3 months. Like the Languages desk, there are many unique contributors. Froth takes the plaudits for most edits in a week - 90 - and the page has managed to peak at 670 edits/week in January this year. The edit rate has dropped slightly since then.
The Mathematics desk is older than Computing, being created in November 2005, but has less edits: just under 18,000. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Lambiam | 1083 | 6.1 |
User:KSmrq | 884 | 4.9 |
User:StuRat | 655 | 3.7 |
User:Meni Rosenfeld | 575 | 3.2 |
User:Lethe | 418 | 2.3 |
The top 4 contributors are the most consistent along with User:Gandalf61 and User:B jonas. Lethe contributing significantly for the first 6 months, when he hit 50 edits/week, but nothing more since then. This desk has the most influential "core" of contributors, with over 20% of all contributions coming from just 5 people (for comparison, the top 5 contribute just 9% of the Misc Desk). The desk peaked in April 2006, with 400 edits/week, but has remained steady since then at a slightly reduced rate.
The Entertainment desk is the baby of the Ref Desk family, being created in December 2006. In that time it has had just under 5,000 edits. The top 5 contributors are as follows, excluding bots:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 196 | 4 |
User:Wakuran | 136 | 2.8 |
User:Clarityfiend | 132 | 2.7 |
User:Sluzzelin | 117 | 2.4 |
User:Dismas | 88 | 1.8 |
Its a little harder to spot trends in a compressed time frame. With the exception of Wakuran, who edited for the first 3 months only, the top 12 editors have edited consistently since launch. StuRat and Wakuran have both edited at a peak rate of 30 per week and the page had, at most, 290 edits in a week in February 2007.
Of course, as we all know, quantity does not equal quality, and one good contribution may be worth more to our reader than many poor ones. Nevertheless, the amount of effort a number of people have put into this part of the project in good faith is quite astounding. So on behalf of our readers, a big thank you to those named above and all the other regular contributors not mentioned by name. For those interested, these data were generated using Wikidashboard (which is a neat tool from PARC) and is good through late July 2007. Once everyone has had a chance to poke fun at those who clearly need to get out more *ahem* ;), I'll move this to a subpage and perhaps do a little bit more comparative analysis to see if we can glean some useful information about how our services are used and thus make them better. Rockpocke t 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the data is tabulated in the image, right. It was generated by crossreferencing the top 20 contributors to each Desk, with the top twenty pages edited by each of those editors. As such:
I'm pretty confident this data is good, but around the 19-20th position it remains possible that an editor just outside the top 20 of each individual page could amass enough in total to sneak in. They way I collected that data can not rule that out. However, its unlikely though, as I selected a few editors at random who contribute widely but are not in any top 20, and none of them broke the overall top twenty. Enjoy. Rockpocke t 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all, for that. Fun and interesting. Sorry, but it doesn't count for thread of the week. Lol. -- Dweller 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Very nice find! Too bad the data is so old :( By the way you forgot stats on this page! Look right. -- froth t 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite believe it... Humanities Desk wins it, with no contribution from the ubiquitous Clio. Extraordinary. Anyway, well done to everyone who contributed here ( [8]) especially as it seems our article will improve as a result. -- Dweller 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Me, I'd say this question was fine and its removal was silly and unnecessary. — Steve Summit ( talk) 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting but perhaps moot as the "medical" advice asked for has been rendered on the OP's talk. - hydnjo talk 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't medical advice and it wasn't appropriate to remove it. This is the type of thing you would ask a costume-designer, not a doctor. StuRat 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea for how these projects can collaborate to benefit both the RD community and Wikiversity... I'll happily cross post it here if that's preferable, but in the interests of keeping the conversation in one place, maybe folks could have a look here: v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Help_Desk_and_the_WP_Reference_Desk:_possibilities_for_both_communities. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From the Humanities desk:
There is absolutely no evidence that this is a homework question. It doesn't read like a homework question to me. -- Mwalcoff 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to look for the patronising template Lanfear's Bane was using, to delete it, and instead realised there was no category for all the templates associated with the reference desk. As I can't find one, it would be great if people could add any they know of into this category. Neil ム 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Overzealous, very BITE-y homework responses. Non-content additions. More and more "discussion threads" (e.g. the diatribe about Home Depot and such on the Science desk the other day). I think it's break time. -- LarryMac | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1) The "tool" linked from parc.com seems to mirror the WP login page: see here. Can anyone explain why? At first glance, this does not seem appropriate -- not that I am one to find fault with PARC, mind you, just wondering if anyone has some background explanation.
2) The tool linked here specifies 483 unique editors, but only (159 IP addresses). Huh? Does that strike anyone else as a lot of different user names riding in on very few unique IPs? Even if you factor in situations where multiple human beings use the same IP (computer labs, certain ISPs, etc.) that ratio seems odd. dr.ef.tymac 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so y'all know, I'm going to be traveling for the next two and a half weeks, with sketchy or no internet connectivity. This is good for me (I'm looking forward to the trip!), but it has implications for the archiving of our beloved desks.
If all goes well, I should be able to keep the desks archived more or less normally. (I don't expect I'll manage to run the script every single day, though.) But I wanted to let people know that there may be some occasional "issues". I hope things won't get so bad that anyone has to try archiving the desks by hand again ('cos I know what a royal pain that can be), but you never know. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Why not just invoke the bot out of cron? I could do that, it's true. But I'm still not sure I trust the script enough to do that (especially in its new incarnation at my ISP, where cron would even be a possibility), and anyway, strictly speaking, Scsbot is currently only approved for semiautomatic operation.
Per above discussions, I've nominated {{ Dyoh}} for deletion, and am informing potentially interested parties on the most appropriate talk page:
Template:Dyoh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neil ム 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that neither Entertainment nor any other category lists Theatre. Do theatre/drama questions go in Entertainment, Humanities, or Miscellaneous? -- teb728 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a bot MIA? I don't want to add date headers if it's going to screw-up a delayed bot. - hydnjo talk 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 |
Just to let you know that a gob-smackingly useful thread on the Science desk prompted me to create a Ref Desk thread of the week award -- Dweller 13:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed a response and my angry reply to it since it does not help the question I originally asked. I have left a message on the users talk page about this.
This was removed
I imagined (wrongly it seems) that it would be patently obvious that a 'prose translation' is not suitable for a factual article on the english language version of wikipedia. I already asked the same question previously but got an equally unhelpful answer and no more. As the question would soon be archived I re-asked it.
I thought it would be clear to all that the current 'english' translation actually makes no sense. Does japanese simply not translate at all? 87.102.6.217 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Not many people have responded to the suggestion to get User:SineBot to monitor the RD. Before we go ahead, one last time, is anyone opposed to this? Nil Einne 13:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Just as a suggestion could the bot automatically sign for me, so instead of doing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.84.56 ( talk) 14:16, August 25, 2007 (UTC) It does this: 87.102.84.56 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC) and saves me any embarressment and a little typing. 87.102.84.56 14:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the necessary cat to all the pages. Possibly we could have added it to the header but that would likely have caused other problems. I added it to the top before the header so it wouldn't accidently get archived. I also had to put it in line with the header or it added a whitespace line. Initially I added a white space between the headercfg and the cat but I stopped when it caused problems with the languages desk with a unicode template. I didn't bother to correct the earlier ones but as there is no ill effects as far as I can tell it doesn't really matter. Nil Einne 22:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this [1] (see number 17) which I've corrected here. I'm lazy to look into it but could it be a bot bug? I note someone mentioned a abortive bot edit [2] so alternatively perhaps that's why. Nil Einne 23:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's one for my "great ideas that are probably never going to happen" file, but I present it anyway, partially in response to User:Dweller/Dweller's Ref Desk thread of the week award and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Thread_of_the_week_award. Dweller presents a great idea. I'd like to suggest it could be made even better by allowing people to vote once on every refdesk post.
This could be implemented by allowing contributors to either "upvote" or "downvote" individual posts on the Reference Desks. The thread of the week for any given ref desk would be the thread with the most upvotes.
For an example of what this might look like in practice, see one website that supports this very feature, indicating both the Best and the Worst, based solely on the vote count. See also Wikipedia:Other projects similar to Wikipedia and search for "voting on posts".
To prevent abuse, this would have to be restricted to users with a WP account. To prevent chicanery, the votes would be anonymous. All the WP end-users will see is a negative or positive number, reflecting the sum total of "upvotes" and "downvotes".
Although this will probably never happen here, there ya go. dr.ef.tymac 17:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's my idea - how about if (signed editors) could mark questions as "sound question, unclear, diatribe, flamebate, wrong desk, hasn't searched, etc".. 87.102.18.14 14:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC) That said I'd tend to oppose the idea here since it's more likely to cause problems than solve any... 87.102.18.14 14:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Ooh. That's a fine mess I've gotten you all into. -- Dweller 15:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I love the way Wikipedia develops. Will I live to see the day that abuse of whatever emerges from is reported at ANI? lol. -- Dweller 12:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it's pretty clear when a great answer has been given to an interesting question and it's worth saving for posterity. I suspect that all we really need to do is to create a page called 'Best of the Ref Desk' (or something like that) and let people edit it in true Wikipedia style. It's going to grow - and it'll doubtless accumulate cruft - and someone will periodically clean it up. It would have a 'discussion' page where people may choose to passionately argue about what should and shouldn't be there - and polls may occasionally happen when there is debate over whether some article should be there or not. But I suspect that in the end, the standards for what makes it into the page will be quirky and that the quality you'll need to have to make it into the page will gradually grow over the years. It is likely (as with most Wikipedia pages) that one or two people will come to informally 'own' the page and keep it alive and relevent. Whether it contains witty (but irrelevent) answers or off-topic (but clever) answers - or merely the ones that helped the OP the most, is anyone's guess. But this way it can evolve and grow into whatever we want it to be.
This approach is taken with lots of other 'Best of' Wikipedia pages such as Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Voting adds red tape and is not 'the wikipedia way'. A weekly pick would mean that in some weeks a basically weak choice has to be made because there was nothing better - and on really good weeks, two excellent answers have to fight it out to be included. The 'Benevolent Dictator' model only works when more or less everyone agrees with the dictator - there is no easy way to ensure that we have the right person for the job.
A less formal mechanism would be much nicer. Let's just make a page and let people populate it - it's the WP way.
SteveBaker 14:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}On page Wikipedia:Reference desk the category
should be changed to
-- Lambiam 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys! I've just checked the Humanities Desk history, as I usually do in the evening, and see a quite legitimate question on Kublai Khan was removed altogether by an anonymous IP, on the grounds that it was a 'homework question' (An answer was also removed). I sincerly hope that the questioner did not notice this, because I cannot imagine anything more discourteous and hurtful. The thread was restored by Lambiam, exercising his usual good sense. I am in favour of the instant removel of obvious trollish questions, and I can just about tolerate a 'we do not do homework' response; but the complete excision of an honest question, homework or not, is for me quite intolerable. I hope you do not think I am making too much of this, but I would not wish to see this action as part of a new pattern. Incidentally, on the matter of trolling, I am beginning to feel that the Haiti and West Africa questions are beginning, ever so slightly, to fall into this category. Several superb answers have been produced, but the same old thing just keeps on rolling along! Love to you all Clio the Muse 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We have a winner for this week. Well done the Mathematics Desk. (Yes, I can't quite believe it, myself) -- Dweller 11:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a discussion regarding the merits of linking to the Wikipedia-related IRC channel which deals with factual enquiries ( #wikipedia-desk) from the "howtoask" header and possibly other places at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask. All interested users are invited to contribute. GDonato ( talk) 10:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
The archiving bot just filled in the last of the redlinks (all seven "Sep 2007"s) at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives. There's room for a few more, but at some point fairly soon we'll have to think about expanding the format in a different dimension. Perhaps we should grow the current block with three more sets of monthly links until it can read "Answered questions, October 2006 – December 2007", and then start a series of twelve-month blocks above it for 2008 and beyond. — Steve Summit ( talk) 01:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations go to the Miscellaneous Desk for this week's award. Maaaaaarvellous. -- Dweller 10:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice. I also updated section 0 to include a link to this page. A.Z. 17:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
This page now has its very own custom edit button for section 0 of the page. --VectorPotential Talk 17:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, VP, that's a much needed addition. StuRat 03:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
So, there are a number of frequently asked questions. Should we do something about it? (I believe this is a frequently asked question on this talk page) People usually link to older threads about the same subject when they recall that there has been a question about it before. I was thinking about adding a sub-section to all threads that are about frequently asked about subjects. Something like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003, Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from January 2006.
So say we click on the third link to read the thread from 2006. There would be a similar sub-section there like this:
=== Related threads ===
Related thread from June 2003, Related thread from May 2004, Related thread from October 2005, Related thread from September 2007.
This way, it would be easy to navigate through all threads about a subject. A.Z. 02:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Code cleanup done. Some people haven't worked out that a preceding space does this.
Template:Google images may be useful for various threads on the reference desk (I remember one instance when someone didn't know what a milk bag looked like). It is used the same way as Template:Google. A.Z. 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for putting this here but I didn't know where else to put it. I posted on an article and was told I needed to follow the guidelines in how to be recognized as an expert. The person editing my post and removing the materials did not give me a link and did not have a link to their e-mail address. What's that all about? If somebody is going to edit others shouldn't they be required to give a point of contact? I've looked and looked. So where are the guidelines for being recognized as an expert in a field and how to post as an expert? ChaplainSvendsen 11:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems recently editors have been assuming any question that could be homework is homework. Without any other evidence, they jump on the questioner, saying, "Do your own homework!"
How can we discourage editors from being so jumpy? -- Mwalcoff 00:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's a recent example of a questioner who was jumped on prematurely: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#What_is_the_secret_behind_the_success_of_American_agriculture.3F -- Mwalcoff 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm late. Big up the Language Desk. [4] -- Dweller 14:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
[5] I think asking other female editors out is getting beyond things. Humour, yes, but should stay within scope of question.-- martianlostinspace email me 22:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Would it be polite to tell them, or do we leave them to discover things like that for themselves? Certainly in my early days, I did things all the time that people simply reverted but didn't WP:BITE me on. martianlostinspace email me 23:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Having a reference desk in Wikipedia sounds unneeded now that we have Wikiversity. We could just point users to the Wikiversity project instead. What do you think? NerdyNSK 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... although, even supposing the desk was separate from the encyclopedia, there is nothing which prevents answers being used to improve articles in another project - even a wiki rival, for example, Citizendium. In all honesty, I doubt that in practice it is always the case that they are used to improve. I guess tens of articles, with your answers, could have become semi doctoral thesis's/thesii/thesises/thesisisisis, etc, or whatever else the plural of thesis is. I don't suppose you would mind us copying your answers to relevant talk pages? (Of course, I presume this right already exists in that you must have already GDFL'd it, but it is polite to ask anyway.) martianlostinspace email me 08:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I was playing about with a new analytical tool (See here for example) and thought it might be interesting to compare and contrast some metrics for the desks...
The Miscellaneous desk is the granddaddy of the Ref Desks, being the offshoot of the original desk from 2002. As such it has the most contributions, a whopping 99,000+. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 3666 | 3.7 |
User:DirkvdM | 1595 | 1.6 |
User:Light current | 1517 | 1.5 |
User:Dismas | 1182 | 1.2 |
User:JackofOz | 1019 | 1 |
In the top 20 the most consistent editors are User:MacGyverMagic, User:Tagishsimon and User:Alteripse, all of whom have contributed with regularity since mid 2004. The most sporadic are User:Light current, User:Justanother and User:THB who made over 1000, 800 and 700 edits respectively, in a about a 6 month period, then stopped (for various reasons). Light current also came in with the most edits in a week: 190. Activity on the desk peaked around this time last year, when StuRat, DirkvdM and Light Current were are their editing peak. The page was hitting around 1500 edits a week at that period, and has been declining since then. An honorable mention for User:SteveBaker, who sneaks into the top 20 as the most recently prolific editor: around 600 since February this year.
The Science desk is the second most popular desk and is catching the Misc, it has amassed over 88,000 since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 4885 | 5.5 |
User:Light current | 2614 | 3 |
User:DirkvdM | 1864 | 2.1 |
User:Mac Davis | 1636 | 1.9 |
User:Edison | 1145 | 1.3 |
Many of the same trends described above can be found on this page. The most consistent editors are User:TenOfAllTrades, User:Nunh-huh and Alteripse, all of whom have contributed with regularity since it was created. User:Lambiam joins Light current in sporadic editing here, and User:Ummit and User:Nimur took long breaks from editing, but returned. Light current also notched to a remarkable, and somewhat scary, 330 edits a week at one point, almost double what StuRat managed in second. This desk also peaked around a year ago (hitting 1480 edits/week), and has been on a slowly decreasing trend since.
The Humanities desk comes in third, with over 64,000 since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 3126 | 4.8 |
User:Clio the Muse | 2911 | 4.5 |
User:Loomis51 | 2255 | 3.5 |
User:JackofOz | 1258 | 1.9 |
User:Lambiam | 979 | 1.5 |
There are a good number of editors who have contributed consistently since the page was created, these include StuRat, JackofOz, User:Kainaw User:Nunh-huh, User:Shantavira and User:Mwalcoff. User:Halcatalyst and User:Wakuran edited significantly for a period and then stopped. The obvious specialist on this page is Clio, who had edited consistently at a rate of around 55 edits/week since October 2006 and will soon knock StuRat off the No. 1 spot. Like the others, this desk also peaked around a year ago (hitting 1170 edits/week), it has dropped off a little since then, but is holding steady.
The Language desk comes is the most popular of the, shall we say, less frequented desks. Despite being formed at the same time as Humanities, it has had less than half the activity, about 31,000 edits since August 2005. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Angr | 1245 | 4 |
User:JackofOz | 1079 | 3.5 |
User:StuRat | 838 | 2.7 |
User:Lambiam | 817 | 2.6 |
User:Wakuran | 780 | 2.5 |
The most consistent contributors are User:Marco polo and JackofOz. Wakuran and User:Greatgavini edited significantly for a period and then stopped and Angr did the opposite, having edited heavily and regularly except for a 6 month break at the end of last year. This desk has the most "new faces" among the top 20 editors by edit, perhaps reflecting its more specialist subject area. The top 5 editors have all peaked at 40-50 edits per week and the page record is 550 edits/week. Unlike the others, the page activity peaked slightly earlier last year, perhaps reflecting Angr's wikibreak, and has since dipped to early 2006 levels again.
The Computing desk is newer still, having accumulated over 21,000 edits since July 2006. The top 5 contributors (excluding bots) are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Froth | 902 | 4.2 |
User:StuRat | 713 | 3.3 |
User:Kainaw | 487 | 2.3 |
User:H2g2bob | 383 | 1.8 |
User:CesarB | 337 | 1.3 |
The most consistent contributors are Froth, StuRat, Kainaw, CesarB and User:Splintercellguy, all of whom have contributed since the page was created. Wakuran and User:Finlay McWalter edited heavily and regularly except for a 4 month break at the beginning of year. User:L has been a significant contributor recently, racking up 210 edits in 3 months. Like the Languages desk, there are many unique contributors. Froth takes the plaudits for most edits in a week - 90 - and the page has managed to peak at 670 edits/week in January this year. The edit rate has dropped slightly since then.
The Mathematics desk is older than Computing, being created in November 2005, but has less edits: just under 18,000. The top 5 contributors are as follows:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:Lambiam | 1083 | 6.1 |
User:KSmrq | 884 | 4.9 |
User:StuRat | 655 | 3.7 |
User:Meni Rosenfeld | 575 | 3.2 |
User:Lethe | 418 | 2.3 |
The top 4 contributors are the most consistent along with User:Gandalf61 and User:B jonas. Lethe contributing significantly for the first 6 months, when he hit 50 edits/week, but nothing more since then. This desk has the most influential "core" of contributors, with over 20% of all contributions coming from just 5 people (for comparison, the top 5 contribute just 9% of the Misc Desk). The desk peaked in April 2006, with 400 edits/week, but has remained steady since then at a slightly reduced rate.
The Entertainment desk is the baby of the Ref Desk family, being created in December 2006. In that time it has had just under 5,000 edits. The top 5 contributors are as follows, excluding bots:
Editor | # edits | % of total |
---|---|---|
User:StuRat | 196 | 4 |
User:Wakuran | 136 | 2.8 |
User:Clarityfiend | 132 | 2.7 |
User:Sluzzelin | 117 | 2.4 |
User:Dismas | 88 | 1.8 |
Its a little harder to spot trends in a compressed time frame. With the exception of Wakuran, who edited for the first 3 months only, the top 12 editors have edited consistently since launch. StuRat and Wakuran have both edited at a peak rate of 30 per week and the page had, at most, 290 edits in a week in February 2007.
Of course, as we all know, quantity does not equal quality, and one good contribution may be worth more to our reader than many poor ones. Nevertheless, the amount of effort a number of people have put into this part of the project in good faith is quite astounding. So on behalf of our readers, a big thank you to those named above and all the other regular contributors not mentioned by name. For those interested, these data were generated using Wikidashboard (which is a neat tool from PARC) and is good through late July 2007. Once everyone has had a chance to poke fun at those who clearly need to get out more *ahem* ;), I'll move this to a subpage and perhaps do a little bit more comparative analysis to see if we can glean some useful information about how our services are used and thus make them better. Rockpocke t 09:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, the data is tabulated in the image, right. It was generated by crossreferencing the top 20 contributors to each Desk, with the top twenty pages edited by each of those editors. As such:
I'm pretty confident this data is good, but around the 19-20th position it remains possible that an editor just outside the top 20 of each individual page could amass enough in total to sneak in. They way I collected that data can not rule that out. However, its unlikely though, as I selected a few editors at random who contribute widely but are not in any top 20, and none of them broke the overall top twenty. Enjoy. Rockpocke t 19:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks all, for that. Fun and interesting. Sorry, but it doesn't count for thread of the week. Lol. -- Dweller 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Very nice find! Too bad the data is so old :( By the way you forgot stats on this page! Look right. -- froth t 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't quite believe it... Humanities Desk wins it, with no contribution from the ubiquitous Clio. Extraordinary. Anyway, well done to everyone who contributed here ( [8]) especially as it seems our article will improve as a result. -- Dweller 10:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Me, I'd say this question was fine and its removal was silly and unnecessary. — Steve Summit ( talk) 16:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Interesting but perhaps moot as the "medical" advice asked for has been rendered on the OP's talk. - hydnjo talk 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this isn't medical advice and it wasn't appropriate to remove it. This is the type of thing you would ask a costume-designer, not a doctor. StuRat 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I have an idea for how these projects can collaborate to benefit both the RD community and Wikiversity... I'll happily cross post it here if that's preferable, but in the interests of keeping the conversation in one place, maybe folks could have a look here: v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Help_Desk_and_the_WP_Reference_Desk:_possibilities_for_both_communities. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 18:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
From the Humanities desk:
There is absolutely no evidence that this is a homework question. It doesn't read like a homework question to me. -- Mwalcoff 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was trying to look for the patronising template Lanfear's Bane was using, to delete it, and instead realised there was no category for all the templates associated with the reference desk. As I can't find one, it would be great if people could add any they know of into this category. Neil ム 15:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Overzealous, very BITE-y homework responses. Non-content additions. More and more "discussion threads" (e.g. the diatribe about Home Depot and such on the Science desk the other day). I think it's break time. -- LarryMac | Talk 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
1) The "tool" linked from parc.com seems to mirror the WP login page: see here. Can anyone explain why? At first glance, this does not seem appropriate -- not that I am one to find fault with PARC, mind you, just wondering if anyone has some background explanation.
2) The tool linked here specifies 483 unique editors, but only (159 IP addresses). Huh? Does that strike anyone else as a lot of different user names riding in on very few unique IPs? Even if you factor in situations where multiple human beings use the same IP (computer labs, certain ISPs, etc.) that ratio seems odd. dr.ef.tymac 21:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Just so y'all know, I'm going to be traveling for the next two and a half weeks, with sketchy or no internet connectivity. This is good for me (I'm looking forward to the trip!), but it has implications for the archiving of our beloved desks.
If all goes well, I should be able to keep the desks archived more or less normally. (I don't expect I'll manage to run the script every single day, though.) But I wanted to let people know that there may be some occasional "issues". I hope things won't get so bad that anyone has to try archiving the desks by hand again ('cos I know what a royal pain that can be), but you never know. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Why not just invoke the bot out of cron? I could do that, it's true. But I'm still not sure I trust the script enough to do that (especially in its new incarnation at my ISP, where cron would even be a possibility), and anyway, strictly speaking, Scsbot is currently only approved for semiautomatic operation.
Per above discussions, I've nominated {{ Dyoh}} for deletion, and am informing potentially interested parties on the most appropriate talk page:
Template:Dyoh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Neil ム 08:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I was surprised to see that neither Entertainment nor any other category lists Theatre. Do theatre/drama questions go in Entertainment, Humanities, or Miscellaneous? -- teb728 01:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there a bot MIA? I don't want to add date headers if it's going to screw-up a delayed bot. - hydnjo talk 22:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)