![]() | 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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
I did a brief analysis last year of our response speed on the Science Desk. On a whim, I repeated the analysis using data from four days in November (November 1, 10, 19, and 27).
I've only plotted the time to the first response, and I haven't attempted to assess the quality of answers supplied. (Someone who's more dedicated can dive in.)
No questions went unanswered this year. Our median response time was 33 minutes, and three-quarters of all questions received a response in less than two hours (106 minutes).
All of these numbers were similar to 2007's figures; see File:Questions Answered Science Ref Desk.gif. Keep up the good work, everyone! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Under the Science desk topic "Speed of sound in SF6" the following was posted:
I removed the above post by Dragons flight from the above from the Science Desk. I object to telling people it is "relatively safe" or "quite safe" to inhale a gas which can cause asphyxiation. This jumps into medical advice about how the body's "suffocation reflex" would work. Edison ( talk) 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm copying over the rest of the safety related discussion. Fostering paranoid by saying this is unsafe is not helpful. The experiment comparing the effects of breathing small amount of He to small amounts of SF6 is done in middle school and high school chem labs. It is quite safe, and we shouldn't be scaring people and saying things like "don't try this anywhere". If you don't want me to say it is safe (when it is), then fine. But you shouldn't allow other people to say it is unsafe. Out of curiosity, I searched the LexisNexis news archive and can't find a single news report of anyone ever dying due to exposure to SF6. If you have ever had access to the stuff you'd know accidental suffocation is pretty unlikely (outside of accidents with industrial quantities). Dragons flight ( talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This removal is WRONG. I must protest it in the strongest possible terms.
We simply don't go around removing replies that we happen to believe are incorrect. That's NOT how the RD works. To allow this to happen sets a dangerous precedent. What we do - in the spirit of openness - is to post a reply eloquently explaining the contrary position (preferably with evidence and stuff) - and we allow the OP to decide which argument sounds the most convincing. This is well established practice - and I see no reason to change that practice in this case.
So removing this reply because you think it's wrong is NOT justified - if we all went around removing each others post every time we believed them to be wrong - the RD would be a battlefield. That's simply NOT how we work.
Nothing that's been said above in any way addresses why we should apply different principles in this case - it doesn't matter whether the answer is true or false - WE DON'T REMOVE INCORRECT ANSWERS. This one isn't even definitely wrong - it appears to be highly controversial in fact - all the more reason not to remove it just because you happen to disagree with it.
I move that we restore the discussion immediately before the OP loses interest in the topic. I'll do it myself unless I hear a clear consensus not to do so.
SteveBaker ( talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following section (or something very similar to it) to the WP:RD guidelines-for-respondants:
Please respond with the usual Support/Reject replies - along with a brief statement of your reasons and a ~~~~ signature:
I'm badly pressed for time at the moment, so I can't jump into a detailed set of arguments. I'll note that I think it's absolutely reasonable to remove "it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying". I'd probably also block the troll who posted it. We're supposed to be helping people here, not harming them. Users who are obviously acting against that goal should be shown the door.
That said, I think there is room for a conversation about how we handle comments for which the interpretation, intent, and context are a bit more nuanced. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering, how often does this happen to justify an etiquette statement at all? but suggest one that appeals to me is this selection from Steve's own words:
Note:Do not delete incorrect responses, instead offer a correct response with references. Only threads inclearviolation of guidelines may be deleted.
Otherwise, it's tl:dr all over again. Personally, I support the deletion of a completely phobic thread that got away from the original question and seemed to unfairly impute all kinds of chaotic dangers/impulses to the poster. Julia Rossi ( talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I do wonder if additional specific guidance is actually required here. The current wording of the existing guideline#When removing or redacting a posting reads (in part):
Is there really much that we want to say beyond the current wording? I fear that we may be trying to codify common sense — more often than not a futile endeavour. While I appreciate Julia's suggestion above, I'm afraid that one man's 'clear violation' is another man's 'informative response'; it may not be possible to avoid gray areas.
Looking at the specific case that started this thread, we did essentially follow the (existing) process. A post was removed to this talk page, and a (frank) discussion about its appropriateness ensued. The fact that the discussion took place – with multiple views from multiple parties – suggests that the removal of the comment was not patently unreasonable on its face, nor was it unambiguously out of line with what at least a substantial portion of the Ref Desk participants think is reasonable or ethically appropriate.
So, would the proposed change preclude the comment removal which precipitated this discussion? At least some of the argument above is based on the notion that the response given was not merely incorrect, but incorrect in such a way as to potentially present a serious hazard to life or health. While I'm hesitant to declare a consensus, at the moment it seems that a healthy majority of participants here would be willing to remove (or tolerate the removal of) the hypothetical baby-in-a-bag comment. Both would seem to fall on the misleading-and-potentially-dangerous continuum, albeit at widely spaced points. Where we ultimately place our threshold of tolerance on that continuum is always going to be fuzzy and context-dependent, and I don't think amenable to easy codification in our guidelines. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Steve mischaracterized my action. I do not go around removing replies I believe to be incorrect. I saw an immediate danger and acteed immediately. I moved it here for review, rather than simply deleting it. If someone says E= M*C*2 I will not delete it, but will instead post my own reply noting the error and offering a referenced correction. I moved the text in question not because I felt it was incorrect, but because of a unreferenced and questionable assertion that inhaling a suffocating gas was "quite safe" when in fact it could clearly cause death or injury. The reply I removed also offered unsolicited medical advice about the "suffocation response." No safety guidelines were included about making sure that there is breathable air in the space (don't put put your head in a bag of SF6) Numerous people have died from entering confined spaces filled with nitrogen rather than air. It was not responsive to the original question, which asked about the speed of sound in the gas. No guidelines were provided, such as not doing it via a mask, or making sure there was adult supervision, or making sure that the gas did not contain adulterants (recycled SF6 removed from a circuit breaker would contain products of arcing, for instance). No reference link was provided, such as to a science experiment site published by a college. No irreparable harm is done by the immediate removal to this reference page of similar well intentioned but dangerous recommendations. If the community disagrees with the removal, it can be readded. Edison ( talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a little archiving assistance task, if someone feels up to it. (I can't think of an easy way to do it, or I'd do it myself.)
Question 1: Did #2 accurately copy the contents of WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 as of 18:25 on 15 December 2008?
Question 2: Were there any changes made to the December 11 text on the main Mathematics desk after that? (I suspect there were.)
Question 3: Were any further changes made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #2 happened, and before #3 happened?
Question 4: Have any further changes been made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #3 happened? (Note that this question is a moving target: if the answer is "no" now, it could change to "yes" at any time.)
Depending on the answers to these questions, we can either have the bot forcibly recreate WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 with the text deleted from the main Mathematics desk in #3 (which is easy), or hand-integrate the changes involved in question 2 back into WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 (which is harder). Or we can throw up our hands and forget about it. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here, 87.102.86.73 said "...forward and the new date pointing backwards...". How does he mean? 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
[6]. The guidelines only apply whenever you feel like, or what? And hey, let's don't forget to all chime in on "Who would win?" and "Punch in the face" since we're not bothering with answering valid questions with references these days. -- LarryMac | Talk 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Chatroom. Because let's face it, that's what it's become. Malcolm XIV ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
this was a blatant "I have a (insert disease here). Give me medical advice." question. I feel it rather depressing that so many people responded, including otherwise good editors. Perhaps I read the question wrong. Feel free to revert if I'm completely off on this. -- kainaw ™ 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The recent question on WP:RD/M#Attaining US Residency as a student seems to me like a request for legal advice, although the relevant expert to ask would probably be an immigration officer, not a lawyer. I'm just enough unsure about that that I haven't deleted the question and answer, but I think I hope someone else will. -- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[7]. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[8] (also not appropriate for Science desk). -- Coneslayer ( talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
...and...oh! It looks like Santa has dropped down your virtual chimney! Here is your present! (My son and I were recruited as elves - we wrote it specially for the occasion)
See Also: Samegame
(It works in Firefox, Safari & Chrome - but it's rather slow in IE)
SteveBaker ( talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I was typing that and when i pressed preview, it didnt blue link. Post this on bugzilla please, because I don't have an account. 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
To? Julia Rossi ( talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
By JSBillings. Just giving a quick heads-up here in case he doesn't. I was actually about to remove it myself... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
To anyone who can help me.... My daughter who is 2 was taken out of the country on the 16th Dec 2008 without my consent. The female Judge granted this only two weeks before the due date. I had made things very clear through out my ordeal with the court system now for almost 2 years regarding the threats of her never coming back if she should ever be taken out of the country. Not only has this happened just recently but the courts have turned a blind eye to demands that she is to be stripped down and handed to me while i pick her up from her daycare centre. I have video recordings of all these matters and still the judge will not take into account what has been happening to her.. This story could go on to be truthful but I need some answers as to how this could happen and what grounds. The Judge also refused to put restrictions on my x partner and I do not know where she is or their itinrary's. Supposedly she is due back on the 8th Jan but what if she is not what do i do next... My lawyer isn't the best lawyer but I cant afford a decent one either. And I have never used this site before so sorry if its in the wrong place
forjustice77 Perth WA
Diff of removal, just for the record — Matt Eason ( Talk • Contribs) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, 68.127.228.70 ( talk · contribs) is actually Lysdexia ( talk · contribs), who was banned many years ago. I suppose the IP should also be blocked if anyone would like to bother with the effort. Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (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 50 | ← | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | → | Archive 60 |
I did a brief analysis last year of our response speed on the Science Desk. On a whim, I repeated the analysis using data from four days in November (November 1, 10, 19, and 27).
I've only plotted the time to the first response, and I haven't attempted to assess the quality of answers supplied. (Someone who's more dedicated can dive in.)
No questions went unanswered this year. Our median response time was 33 minutes, and three-quarters of all questions received a response in less than two hours (106 minutes).
All of these numbers were similar to 2007's figures; see File:Questions Answered Science Ref Desk.gif. Keep up the good work, everyone! TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Under the Science desk topic "Speed of sound in SF6" the following was posted:
I removed the above post by Dragons flight from the above from the Science Desk. I object to telling people it is "relatively safe" or "quite safe" to inhale a gas which can cause asphyxiation. This jumps into medical advice about how the body's "suffocation reflex" would work. Edison ( talk) 20:05, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm copying over the rest of the safety related discussion. Fostering paranoid by saying this is unsafe is not helpful. The experiment comparing the effects of breathing small amount of He to small amounts of SF6 is done in middle school and high school chem labs. It is quite safe, and we shouldn't be scaring people and saying things like "don't try this anywhere". If you don't want me to say it is safe (when it is), then fine. But you shouldn't allow other people to say it is unsafe. Out of curiosity, I searched the LexisNexis news archive and can't find a single news report of anyone ever dying due to exposure to SF6. If you have ever had access to the stuff you'd know accidental suffocation is pretty unlikely (outside of accidents with industrial quantities). Dragons flight ( talk) 22:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
This removal is WRONG. I must protest it in the strongest possible terms.
We simply don't go around removing replies that we happen to believe are incorrect. That's NOT how the RD works. To allow this to happen sets a dangerous precedent. What we do - in the spirit of openness - is to post a reply eloquently explaining the contrary position (preferably with evidence and stuff) - and we allow the OP to decide which argument sounds the most convincing. This is well established practice - and I see no reason to change that practice in this case.
So removing this reply because you think it's wrong is NOT justified - if we all went around removing each others post every time we believed them to be wrong - the RD would be a battlefield. That's simply NOT how we work.
Nothing that's been said above in any way addresses why we should apply different principles in this case - it doesn't matter whether the answer is true or false - WE DON'T REMOVE INCORRECT ANSWERS. This one isn't even definitely wrong - it appears to be highly controversial in fact - all the more reason not to remove it just because you happen to disagree with it.
I move that we restore the discussion immediately before the OP loses interest in the topic. I'll do it myself unless I hear a clear consensus not to do so.
SteveBaker ( talk) 05:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to add the following section (or something very similar to it) to the WP:RD guidelines-for-respondants:
Please respond with the usual Support/Reject replies - along with a brief statement of your reasons and a ~~~~ signature:
I'm badly pressed for time at the moment, so I can't jump into a detailed set of arguments. I'll note that I think it's absolutely reasonable to remove "it's OK to put a plastic bag over your baby's head to stop him crying". I'd probably also block the troll who posted it. We're supposed to be helping people here, not harming them. Users who are obviously acting against that goal should be shown the door.
That said, I think there is room for a conversation about how we handle comments for which the interpretation, intent, and context are a bit more nuanced. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 22:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering, how often does this happen to justify an etiquette statement at all? but suggest one that appeals to me is this selection from Steve's own words:
Note:Do not delete incorrect responses, instead offer a correct response with references. Only threads inclearviolation of guidelines may be deleted.
Otherwise, it's tl:dr all over again. Personally, I support the deletion of a completely phobic thread that got away from the original question and seemed to unfairly impute all kinds of chaotic dangers/impulses to the poster. Julia Rossi ( talk) 03:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I do wonder if additional specific guidance is actually required here. The current wording of the existing guideline#When removing or redacting a posting reads (in part):
Is there really much that we want to say beyond the current wording? I fear that we may be trying to codify common sense — more often than not a futile endeavour. While I appreciate Julia's suggestion above, I'm afraid that one man's 'clear violation' is another man's 'informative response'; it may not be possible to avoid gray areas.
Looking at the specific case that started this thread, we did essentially follow the (existing) process. A post was removed to this talk page, and a (frank) discussion about its appropriateness ensued. The fact that the discussion took place – with multiple views from multiple parties – suggests that the removal of the comment was not patently unreasonable on its face, nor was it unambiguously out of line with what at least a substantial portion of the Ref Desk participants think is reasonable or ethically appropriate.
So, would the proposed change preclude the comment removal which precipitated this discussion? At least some of the argument above is based on the notion that the response given was not merely incorrect, but incorrect in such a way as to potentially present a serious hazard to life or health. While I'm hesitant to declare a consensus, at the moment it seems that a healthy majority of participants here would be willing to remove (or tolerate the removal of) the hypothetical baby-in-a-bag comment. Both would seem to fall on the misleading-and-potentially-dangerous continuum, albeit at widely spaced points. Where we ultimately place our threshold of tolerance on that continuum is always going to be fuzzy and context-dependent, and I don't think amenable to easy codification in our guidelines. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 05:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Steve mischaracterized my action. I do not go around removing replies I believe to be incorrect. I saw an immediate danger and acteed immediately. I moved it here for review, rather than simply deleting it. If someone says E= M*C*2 I will not delete it, but will instead post my own reply noting the error and offering a referenced correction. I moved the text in question not because I felt it was incorrect, but because of a unreferenced and questionable assertion that inhaling a suffocating gas was "quite safe" when in fact it could clearly cause death or injury. The reply I removed also offered unsolicited medical advice about the "suffocation response." No safety guidelines were included about making sure that there is breathable air in the space (don't put put your head in a bag of SF6) Numerous people have died from entering confined spaces filled with nitrogen rather than air. It was not responsive to the original question, which asked about the speed of sound in the gas. No guidelines were provided, such as not doing it via a mask, or making sure there was adult supervision, or making sure that the gas did not contain adulterants (recycled SF6 removed from a circuit breaker would contain products of arcing, for instance). No reference link was provided, such as to a science experiment site published by a college. No irreparable harm is done by the immediate removal to this reference page of similar well intentioned but dangerous recommendations. If the community disagrees with the removal, it can be readded. Edison ( talk) 17:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's a little archiving assistance task, if someone feels up to it. (I can't think of an easy way to do it, or I'd do it myself.)
Question 1: Did #2 accurately copy the contents of WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 as of 18:25 on 15 December 2008?
Question 2: Were there any changes made to the December 11 text on the main Mathematics desk after that? (I suspect there were.)
Question 3: Were any further changes made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #2 happened, and before #3 happened?
Question 4: Have any further changes been made to WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 after #3 happened? (Note that this question is a moving target: if the answer is "no" now, it could change to "yes" at any time.)
Depending on the answers to these questions, we can either have the bot forcibly recreate WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 with the text deleted from the main Mathematics desk in #3 (which is easy), or hand-integrate the changes involved in question 2 back into WP:RD/A/Math/2008 December 11 (which is harder). Or we can throw up our hands and forget about it. — Steve Summit ( talk) 02:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here, 87.102.86.73 said "...forward and the new date pointing backwards...". How does he mean? 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 00:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
[6]. The guidelines only apply whenever you feel like, or what? And hey, let's don't forget to all chime in on "Who would win?" and "Punch in the face" since we're not bothering with answering valid questions with references these days. -- LarryMac | Talk 19:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Chatroom. Because let's face it, that's what it's become. Malcolm XIV ( talk) 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
this was a blatant "I have a (insert disease here). Give me medical advice." question. I feel it rather depressing that so many people responded, including otherwise good editors. Perhaps I read the question wrong. Feel free to revert if I'm completely off on this. -- kainaw ™ 20:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The recent question on WP:RD/M#Attaining US Residency as a student seems to me like a request for legal advice, although the relevant expert to ask would probably be an immigration officer, not a lawyer. I'm just enough unsure about that that I haven't deleted the question and answer, but I think I hope someone else will. -- 208.76.104.133 ( talk) 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[7]. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
[8] (also not appropriate for Science desk). -- Coneslayer ( talk) 20:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
...and...oh! It looks like Santa has dropped down your virtual chimney! Here is your present! (My son and I were recruited as elves - we wrote it specially for the occasion)
See Also: Samegame
(It works in Firefox, Safari & Chrome - but it's rather slow in IE)
SteveBaker ( talk) 06:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I was typing that and when i pressed preview, it didnt blue link. Post this on bugzilla please, because I don't have an account. 96.53.149.117 ( talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
To? Julia Rossi ( talk) 05:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
By JSBillings. Just giving a quick heads-up here in case he doesn't. I was actually about to remove it myself... -- Kurt Shaped Box ( talk) 04:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
To anyone who can help me.... My daughter who is 2 was taken out of the country on the 16th Dec 2008 without my consent. The female Judge granted this only two weeks before the due date. I had made things very clear through out my ordeal with the court system now for almost 2 years regarding the threats of her never coming back if she should ever be taken out of the country. Not only has this happened just recently but the courts have turned a blind eye to demands that she is to be stripped down and handed to me while i pick her up from her daycare centre. I have video recordings of all these matters and still the judge will not take into account what has been happening to her.. This story could go on to be truthful but I need some answers as to how this could happen and what grounds. The Judge also refused to put restrictions on my x partner and I do not know where she is or their itinrary's. Supposedly she is due back on the 8th Jan but what if she is not what do i do next... My lawyer isn't the best lawyer but I cant afford a decent one either. And I have never used this site before so sorry if its in the wrong place
forjustice77 Perth WA
Diff of removal, just for the record — Matt Eason ( Talk • Contribs) 14:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, 68.127.228.70 ( talk · contribs) is actually Lysdexia ( talk · contribs), who was banned many years ago. I suppose the IP should also be blocked if anyone would like to bother with the effort. Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)