User:NorwegianBlue/religion

Game over, number of keystrokes and all that
I enjoy the English Wikipedia for many reasons, one being its inclusive atmosphere. There is obviously no consensus for creating WP:RD/Religion. Nevertheless, the the tremendous amount of discussion is food for thought. I remember having read somewhat ironic, anti-religious comments which were unnecessary and uncalled for in the threads in question. My google-fu is not up to par on this Sunday morning, so I'm unable to give examples, but they were probably on the science desk, and in 2009. The English Wikipedia is *the* international wikipedia. Disrespectful comments about religion on the refdesk may alienate potential contributors. We really shouldn't be doing that. What do you think about adding some words of caution in the guidelines, section Content and tone?


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_March_23#Death
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008_May_4#HOW_.3F

something completely different

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RD/C#C.2FC.2B.2B:_optimal_use_of_fread.28.29_and_fwrite.28.29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2009_July_31#Mobile_phone.2C_voice_recognition_for_calling

Content and tone
The reference desk is not censored. No subject per se is off limits.

Wikipedia is a broad-scope encyclopedia, so questions about topics related to politics, sexuality, bodily functions, or religion, for example, may yield responses that some people consider offensive. We understand that some responses about very controversial subjects, or any discussion of what some may consider "taboo" subjects, are more likely to offend some people than discussion of other subjects. This is unavoidable. Responses are not deemed to be inappropriate as long as they are relevant to the question. However, we take special care to treat potentially offensive subjects with sensitivity, diligence, and rigor. Further, we never set out deliberately to offend, and we endeavor to quickly remove needlessly offensive material in questions or responses.

The desk is not intended to present an overly formal atmosphere; responses may be lighthearted while still maintaining their purpose. Humor is allowed in reference desk answers, provided it is: Please don't start adding jokes just for the sake of it, and don't let humor get in the way of providing a useful answer. Some people (for example children and non-native English speakers) may not understand the joke, or, worse, may mistake a joke for a serious answer. 'In-jokes' can make outsiders feel confused or unwelcome. Sarcasm can be especially hard to detect in a written statement.
 * relevant to the question,
 * not at the expense of other people, including the questioner, and
 * not needlessly offensive.

In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question. The reference desk necessarily involves communication between questioners and respondents from different backgrounds and cultures. There may be a number of reasons for 'badly written' questions – the questioner may not have enjoyed a formal education, or may suffer from learning disabilities – but they still deserve a proper answer. If you're not sure about the meaning of a question, ask for clarification; if you think you understand the question, feel free to state your assumptions and attempt an answer.

We should in all cases strive to exceed the minimum standard of civility. Assume good faith, and don't make the mistake of confusing an editor's poor English with intentional rudeness. Remember that all Reference Desk staff are volunteers and deserve to be treated courteously.

Something completely different:

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RD/C#C.2FC.2B.2B:_optimal_use_of_fread.28.29_and_fwrite.28.29
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2009_July_31#Mobile_phone.2C_voice_recognition_for_calling