Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed

RfC: Should the Reference Desks be closed?
Should the Reference Desks be closed? RfC extended by Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC); originally started by Fram (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Who knows when this is going to end, but if it's still going on 19 November, WP:RFCEND says that it will be bot-closed. Therefore, postponing the bot-closure until 1 December.  Should it be necessary to postpone it further, please replace my signature with yours.  Thank you.  Nyttend (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The ref desk has long been a source of bickering between regulars, and more and more seems to be a walled garden, separate from the encyclopedia, and with some people who feel that the rules of enwiki don't apply there. BLP violations are not only accepted but actively produced and defended by some of the more frequent ref desk responders, and the whole is more of a WP:NOT forum violation than anything else.

Instead of silencing one or the other side at the ref desks, or letting this fester on and on, isn't it time to simply close down the ref desks as being out of scope for enwiki and consider it a well-meaning but ultimately failed project? People who really feel it should continue can request the WMF to set up "Wikirefdesk", parallel to Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Wikisource and so on, where they can have their own rules and chat with whoever they want for as long as they want about any subject. Fram (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Survey: Should the Reference Desks be closed?

 * Support - I don't think it has a ghost of a chance, but I'll at least give it my moral support. After all, if the ref desk went away, where would people go to find the source of their chimp gifs, the story behind their favorite Simpsons clip, or their thinly veiled medical questions? I'm just not sure IMDB and WebMD can handle the traffic if we don't do our fair share.  G M G  talk   10:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have a rather unique definition of "asking for medical advice"... --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * G M G talk   16:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - Well, I don't think it has a ghost of a chance, either, but stranger things have happened here, so I'll add my support and we'll see where it goes. The refdesks are a distraction, seem to want their own rules, and provide no real encyclopedic benefit. Close them, or spin them off somewhere else. -- Begoon 11:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - My preference would be to actually operate them as you know, a reference desk, but since the residents there seem unable to do this, closing it would be better. Alternatively rename it to 'chatforum'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support never been there, but all I know is that my watchlist has been fairly full of discussions relating to drama there consistently for as long as I can remember. When I become aware that something I don't care about is causing issues, it typically means it's doing more harm than good. I'm also convinced by GMG and Fram's points. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I don't think the existence of the desks harm Wikipedia; nor do I think that closing them would cause people to spend the time they would spend there on other parts of this site. So, I don't think closing them will either stop harm or bring any additional good. And, yes, there are some seemingly pointless questions that are asked there, sure, however, there are also a lot of good ones (it has been very helpful to me in tracking down some more obscure mathematical points, and I found little help elsewhere in that regard) - and, for those seemingly pointless questions, they may not be pointless to everyone, but, even if they were, they aren't hurting anything. Finally, if the argument is that the regulars there disagree, then we should probably just go ahead and remove any pages on controversial issues, they raise a lot of problems too and have just as much nonsense and edit warring.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Pages on controversial issues": e.g. Turkey has an ongoing edit war, including page protection and so on, about whether (or how much) it is a democracy or not. But this is a discussion which pertains directly to the encyclopedia: we can't delete Turkey or we should simply delete Wikipedia completely as being pointless: but we can easily delete the refdesks without any impact on the encyclopedia or its completeness. Opposing the deletion of the refdesks because there are problems elsewhere as well is not really a valid argument. Fram (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that before section where I am asserting that refdesks have redeeming features and that they, usually, function rather well - my whole point was that deleting something just because it has problems, sometimes, and disagreement, sometimes, is rather idiotic. In short: we don't delete Turkey because it is worth keeping was the entire point, I see the refdesks as worth keeping. They certainly aren't injuring Wikipedia - I've seen a lot of criticisms of Wiki, most of which I don't agree with, none of them have ever been "Look at this thread on their reference desks". I don't think the desks do harm, I do think they do good - just because harm exists doesn't entail removing it, as you so adroitly observed regarding the article Turkey, so thank you for seeing my point of view.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have much experience of editing outside the refdesk or similar venues, Phoenixia1177? -- Begoon 14:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per Only in Death. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The ref desks keep me motivated to look up things, and on the way to fix article shortcomings. I suspect the effect is similar for many others. The ref desks also acts as a lightning rod - see talk.origins for historical precedence. Not to mention the fact that often enough they provide interesting and enlightening answers to questions. BTW, should someone mention this to the most affected group or is this going to be a Star Chamber decision? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Now at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal: Topic ban for Medeis / μηδείς. Let the WP:BLUDGEONING begin": link to this ANI discussion posted by Guy Macon (with a rther unhappy choice of words). Fram (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is one of the most visible and open pages on the project a Star Chamber? Inaccurate hyperbole much? (it's linked here). -- Begoon 13:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only wonks read the noticeboards routinely, and the link gives no indication that there is a semi-RfC on closing the ref desks. A bit like a rider to get rid of public libraries nation-wide on a bill titled "Provision of a sign warning against Hooliganism of Upper Petunia Park Drive". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any proposal to actually close the ref desks would obviously need much wider input than this straw poll. It's a start though, and your Star Chamber comparison is bizarre. -- Begoon 13:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Throwing out the baby with the bath water" seems to be the perfect phrase to describe this proposal. The ref desks might have problems but closing them will not solve them. But they are the source of a lot of good things too, as Stephan mentions and are quite useful to many people who simply wish to find an answer without having to read dozens of articles. So let's keep the baby inside and just handle policy violations like everywhere else. Regards  So Why  13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I'm not sure anyone is really in favor of getting rid of the ref desk because of behavioral issues with one particular user. I expect most who are in favor would be because it is a glaring and egregious violation of NOTFORUM, and, if anything, should be moved to a sister project, in the same way that Vikivoyage is a stand along project, and could never be fully integrated with Wikipedia, because of fundamental irreconcilable difference, such as our prohibition on original research.  G M G  talk   14:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think WP:NOTFORUM applies here and not only because that part of WP:NOT explicitly excludes the ref desks. Specific questions about certain subjects are a good thing because they promote interest creating and improving articles or finding new articles one has never heard of. I myself (anecdotal evidence alert!) have more than once found interesting new articles through questions at the ref desk I have since edited, edits I would never have made without it. Regards  So Why  14:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm certain it doesn't apply. I think that's the problem.  G M G  talk   14:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The reference desk is a useful function of Wikipedia that has worked well for more than a decade.  Any current problems are temporary and more related to individuals rather than the the Ref Desk itself.  Also, the Administrators' Noticeboard is not the appropriate place to hold a discussion that would be of interest to the Wikipedia community as a whole.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It was intended more as a feeler for some opinions than a full-blown definitive discussion. That will need an RfC on one of the Village Pumps, but if there had been unanimous opposition to the idea here, it would have been rather fruitless to go that way. But this wasn't really made clear in my opening post here. Fram (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per . The ref desks are completely cretinous, and work against our encyclopaedic principle. It is a hive of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:OR, WP:NRS, etc., etc., and distracts from what we are actually WP:HERE for. If the amount of effort that is expended daily at the ref desks was expended on content creation, then-. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna (Currently not receiving (most) pings, sorry) 13:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We need to fix it, probably with more administrative oversight. There should be a place on Wikipedia for readers to go to ask questions, in my opinion; that fits with our purposes quite nicely. ~ Rob 13 Talk 13:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * are you volunteering? --JBL (talk) 20:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proponents assume that if the reference desk is eliminated then it will eliminate the material that was being posted there.  My expectation is that it would still be posted but scattered over the entire project.  RJFJR (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Soft support because it has probably outlived its usefulness. The one thing in its favor is that it can lead to improvements in articles. Unfortunately, it has also become a magnet for some banned users. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, refdesks are not just about discussion of personalities, this would be like closing libraries and sacking staff just because someone happened to talk about someone else, regardless of the universe of questions that are beyond that scope, baby and bathwater... -- Menti  fisto  14:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: This is killing a housefly with a bulldozer. Why not instead try encouraging a few administrators to enforce Wikipedia's policies and guidelines instead of letting a few bad apples on the refdesks flout the rules? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per others. RD has been given more than ample time to realize its potential and has failed. Downside greatly exceeds upside in my view (I note that one of the more prolific RD LTA-trolls attempted to Oppose this proposal to remove one of their favorite trolling playgrounds-). Time to let it go. As Guy pointed out, this and the preceding proposal are not either-or. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  14:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The RD is not really part of Wikipedia's core mission and the only time I hear about it is when trolls and disruptive editors attack it. Having a quick look, I can't see any reason I'd use it when I can just google for stuff or go to my local library. The questions (sample : "According to Bart the Genius#Cultural references, 'Students at the gifted school have lunchboxes that feature images of the 1945 novel Brideshead Revisited and chess grandmaster Anatoly Karpov.' This video on YouTube has a screenshot of the second lunchbox at 6:49. The portrait is obviously not that of Anatoly Karpov - who is it? Or did the animators just draw a generic "Russian" person?") seem rather banal and ridiculous. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Evelyn Waugh probably thought it satiric, but banal? -- Menti  fisto  16:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support at least having a grown up discussion about whether this corner of the project has outlived its usefulness. Well, now that it's been moved to a better venue and it seems we are having the grown-up discussion, let me say that on reflection I think this corner of the project has outlived its usefulness and is now a net negative. I think we should get rid of it or else see if can be spun of into a separate project. --John (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Exception: I don't know about the proposal, but I am certain this is a poor location for this -- because it calls into question all of WP:Reference Desk, it needs to be a thirty day RfC, at least, at probably WP:VPP, with wide notice including on the projects effected and listed at CENT. (feel free to move all these comments) Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a bad point, now that you mention it. ? If it's moved, the heading and a should be left here, as there is already at least one incoming link to this proposal. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  16:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Moving it, or starting a new RfC, I'm fine with either. This is indeed not the place to have the final discussion, but I guess that asking everyone to state their opinion again on the exact same question is overkill. I don't have the time to properly move it right now, so anyone who feels like it may do it instead. Otherwise, I'll do it tomorrow morning. Fram (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak support and with a heavy heart. I used to be a language refdesk regular and liked it a lot there – I haven't really been there much since returning to Wikipedia this year, but it was an intellectually stimulating forum which did occasionally encourage me to edit articles. I created for example Eastern Slovak dialects on the back of a refdesk discussion with the very user named at the top of this thread. I also disagree with the person a few posts above who said it was redundant to google or going to the library – at times I found it quite useful when the problem was not knowing what to google, which happens occasionally when you identify something but don't know a particular term for it. That is my defence of the refdesk, and were we in 2012, I would leave my comment here with a strong oppose.
 * However. Today, I successfully asked for help with something outside my own abilities on a WikiProject talk page, so I believe if we did close the refdesks, at least some of the encyclopedic value of them would still persist elsewhere on the project. And having read this whole discussion, I must admit the arguments for closing the desks down make a lot of sense. Even as I remember them they were a bit of a walled garden, I am sure it does attract many banned users, and WP:BLP (which is not such a problem on the language desk, but very much so on others) is very serious business. So if they were deprecated I would not protest. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  16:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support as the RDs, even when operating ideally, function in a manner contrary to fundamental Wikipedia policies. If we could restrict responses to simply linking to articles and providing information that is in articles, then I could see something within policy. But I can't imagine the bureaucracy involved in that as being particularly pleasant or successful. In all, I'm vaguely reminded of the old, defunct Esperanza project, which was disestablished partly because it did a lot more social networking than encyclopedia building, but also because of a lot of the bureaucratic processes involved. Look, I get that a reference desk is a fundamental part of a library, and that answering basic questions is something that librarians do... but we're an encyclopedia, not a library. While I don't view the argumentation and bickering that happens at the RD as being enough on its own to merit disbanding (after all, argument and bickering is something endemic to a lot of our background operations), I see this as an opportunity to return us to our roots as an encyclopedia. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose to closing down the Ref Desks. Many people have been directed to the correct article, many articles have been improved, and many Q's about how Wikipedia works have been answered there.  I suspect that much of this would move and then overload the Help Desk if the Ref Desk was closed.  Also, the fact that this is suggested whenever we bring up the behavior of one person on the Ref Desk makes us reluctant to get Admins involved in any way.  Imagine if the same happened whenever a problematic editor was causing problems with an article and we asked for a topic ban on the editor there ?  If the counter-proposal was always to delete the article, then people who care about the article wouldn't feel comfortable asking for Admin help, would they ?  Or, in real life, if reporting a robbery at your store made them try to close down your store ?  I've also seen the tendency to try to ban users who, say, complain about an Admin's actions, with a similar chilling effect.  StuRat (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should probably declare your CoI] :) 87,393 edits... 70,380 of them to refdesks?! Mildly incredible: imagine if they had been to articlespace! &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  17:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Still, that's a lot of non-Ref Desk edits, too. Most are just spelling and wording fixes, but it adds up. StuRat (talk) 17:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * based on StuRat's contributions at the math ref desk, if those edits were to main space it would be 70,000 edits of self-indulgent OR ramblings, only dimly related to article content or any standard of quality. --JBL (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Only 3,395 of my edits have been to the Math Ref Desk, and that's spread out over 11 years, with many being requests for clarification or replies to non-math Q's mistakenly placed there. Most days I don't edit the Math Desk at all. I assume you are upset by my initial contribution here:, which I believe was both professional and potentially helpful, while your response was neither (a professional Ref Desk worker doesn't swear and insult others).  StuRat (talk) 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am upset at the bulk of your edits to the math ref desk. The most recent one is a typical example of your self-indulgent OR rambling, only dimly related to the question or to any standard of quality.  Your answer is not potentially helpful and it is not "professional" by any standard that I am aware of -- it's just you stroking your ego by producing "answers" while completely failing to understand what the question is about or what would constitute a useful response.  I suggest that you ask RDBury (who is much more polite than I am) whether he found your answer helpful. --JBL (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did as you suggested, and he provided a classic answer I wish everyone here would listen to: "All I expect is people to make their best effort to provide some useful information on the question, since that's all anyone can expect from me when I answer a question.   I don't expect answers to be useful or even correct as long as as that was the intent."  User_talk:RDBury. StuRat (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think that the quality of your efforts is similar in any respect to that of RDBury's, then there is no point in having this conversation. --JBL (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. The mission of the desks has never been to answer questions about how Wikipedia works. 2. Overload the Help Desk? Seriously? What, are we seeing dozens of such questions a day at RD? That's what it would take to overload the Help Desk. Never mind that we also have WP:Teahouse, WP:VPM, and probably other venues to assume this non-massive burden. 3. This proposal goes way beyond the behavior of one user, so that seems a bit of a strawman. 4. A suggestion has already been made to move this to a more public venue as an RfC, and I think it's likely that will happen because the argument for it is hard to refute. In that case your comment about admin involvement will be moot. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * At WP:RD it says,  That second sentence however, is a non-sequitur.  The wikilink to "reference desk" that I quoted is in the original.  At that article, it says,   Nowhere in that description does it say that a reference desk is for answering questions.  A reference desk is for assisting patrons (readers) in finding their own answers.  Have we evidence that this is what's happening at WP:RD?  To answer the question posed by : maybe.  If the project can be reigned in to the parameters of "reference desk" as opposed to "trying to answer questions", then it seems like a benefit to the English Wikipedia.  If the project has provably resulted in grand improvements to the encyclopedia that far-and-away outweigh the drama at WP:RD (that's spilled over here), then it might be worth expending effort to bring it in line.  Otherwise, it sounds like it's more of a detriment than a benefit, and should be shut down.  —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  18:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Indifferent at this point, but I would like to throw in one aspect of the desks explaining why I, for most of my active years here, haven't regarded my (or most other editors') volunteering at the desk as harmful to the project, but rather as a net benefit: Different people use different points of motivation and inspiration for doing whatever they do, including for working on an encyclopedia. There are a number of editors who regularly use questions at the desks as a springboard for improving and creating articles in mainspace. For one small sample, a few articles had been (and very infrequently still are) added to the Category:WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration.  I occasionally check the desks' recent changes with the namespace filter set for articles (and/or article talk etc.). Example language desk (sorry if there's a problem, not used to the new filtering tools yet) I regularly see changes made by volunteers of the desk (often small improvements, sometimes more significant ones, and occasionally even a new article). I copied most of this from a discussion from over four years ago on the same topic. Sad to see where here again, and I fully understand the supporters, and most of us are supersaturated with unnecessary speculation, bickering, unfriendliness, and general drama at the desks (and other places). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sluzzelin (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The Reference desk is a useful part of wikipedia, albeit one with somewhat different rules. (Somewhere between the freewheeling of talk pages and the stricter rules on mainspace pages.Naraht (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support although I doubt that this is the right venue to ask this question. Overall, this does not help to build an encyclopedia and should be removed per WP:NOT, as with the decline in editors we should be throwing away anything that doesn't help us to reach this goal. --Rschen7754 18:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Over the years, I have frequently edited articles because finding them at the Ref Desk piqued my interest in them. I'm quite confident that if the Ref Desk goes away I will spend less time on article editing.  I am only one anecdotal point of view, but from my perspective the assumption that removing the Ref Desk will encourage more editing of the encyclopedia seems exactly backward.  Dragons flight (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - disposing of the giant mess of WP:NOTFORUM that the ref desk has obviously become. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:33, Today (UTC−5)
 *  Reform Support: very often it is the case that an editor does not receive an adequate answer to the question posed. This is often because discussions are closed too quickly. If they are to stay, discussions must remain open for a set period of time (I suggest seven days), as this allows more editors to partake, and a new name should be applied, to relieve them of the negative image currently possessed (something along the lines of 'Help Centre'). – Sb 2001  19:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC) Changed to support, as this seems to be the only way for change to be effected. – Sb  2001  00:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Ref Desks are a form of community engagement with our content.  For myself, and for at least some others, they can be a springboard for article editing because questions asked often help identify information that Wikipedia either doesn't cover or doesn't present in a way that one would expect.  They are also a gateway for some newbies to gain an awareness that there is a community behind Wikipedia that one can engage with.  Public librarians often provide a reference desk service because it helps people to engage with and benefit from the library's content.  Our Ref Desk operates a little bit differently but I believe is serves the same beneficial purpose.  I would strongly disagree with anyone that believes shutting down the Ref Desks will encourage more editing of articles.  For my part, I'm sure it would lead to less editing of articles, as I would lose one of the major pathways by which I routinely encounter interesting articles (and learn about their gaps based on the questions people ask).  I suspect that many other Ref Desk regulars feel similarly.  More generally, Wikipedia's success is built upon a sense of community.  Forums like the Ref Desk, Help Desk, Village Pump, etc., contribute to building that sense of community and engagement.  We could cut all those things out and still have an encyclopedia, but our sense of community would be worse for it, and in turn our ability to build the encyclopedia would doubtless suffer.  I realize that not everyone enjoys the Ref Desks or thinks that they operate in a productive way, but I believe that they are generally a net positive and that Wikipedia would be poorer without them.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but most of your arguments sound to me to be the same arguments that were levied against the closure of Esperanza. Yes, community engagement is extremely important, particularly where it is engagement of the readership and not merely editors. I actually somewhat agree with you, that closing down the ref desks won't encourage editing, and will close off a vehicle of getting people into editing Wikipedia. Even then, I believe the RDs should be closed as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. As I note above, it would be theoretically possible to reform the RDs to keep them in line with Wikipedia's purposes, but the bureaucracy required—not merely aggressive removal of off-topic questions, but policing of responses that weren't referring people to either articles or published sources—seems unsustainable. I don't have a problem with the helpdesk or village pump in the same way as the RD, because those forums actually are focused in principle and practice on improving the encyclopedia. While it's been argued that the RD takes pressure off talk pages, I don't think that's the case today, though it may have been so in the mid-2000s. Those topics on RD that receive useful answers tend to be topics of pages that are patrolled enough now that they wouldn't sit ignored for years. Those topics where the talk page would sit ignored for years, honestly, I don't think the RD often delivers useful answers. So, really, I don't think this aspect of RD is all that much of a factor. I definitely don't think we're "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", we're more asking people to stop eating in the library; eating is a necessity; can be a social event; and if we let people eat in here we'll get more foot traffic, and some of those people may read books. But we're not a cafeteria, the crumbs attract pests, and the noises and odors disturb people using us as intended. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think Esperanza is a good model here. Actually I sort of thought it was overreach to shut it down, but I do get what pissed people off about it &mdash; it was sort of explicitly an invitation-only "cool kids club".  All the talk about how it didn't advance the purposes of the encyclopedia was, in my estimation, mostly secondary to that annoyance.  The refdesks don't have that problem; if anything, people are upset at how all the Randys can contribute and no one can stop them. As for the "cafeteria" analogy, I have not really seen it explained in what way the refdesks are interfering with the encyclopedic mission.  If you don't like them, you can ignore them, and I don't see any substantive way in which you are the worse off. --Trovatore (talk) 21:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I only read the science one though. I think that they serve a purpose, which would be inappropriate use of article talk pages or other noticeboards.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support for deletion/closing down - Unfortunately, I have come to agree with User:Fram. I have sometimes gotten useful information at the Computing Reference Desk and interesting information at the Humanities Reference Desk and the Science Reference Desk, but the benefit to regular editors of having the Reference Desks is exceeded by the burden that the desks have come to be to the community because of a combination of trolling, overreaction (e.g., Medeis, Guy Macon), and feuds (most recently, Medeis and Guy Macon, but another feud was recently cited by ArbCom).  I had been among those who had asked that ArbCom look into the Reference Desks, but that really just reflects that the Reference Desks have become a nuisance.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Refdesk has nothing to do with our goal of building an encyclopedia. Instead, it's always been a huge drain on human resources. Max Semenik (talk) 19:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As one of those human resources, I don't feel drained, but rather energised. We run on volunteers, and volunteers do what they want to do, not what you or anyone think they should do. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a truly terrible piece of reasoning. As RD editors keep pointing out, different editors get motivated by different things. I edit articles, I also participate occasionally on refdesksci. I don't feel drained by either, otherwise I wouldn't do them. Greglocock (talk) 00:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * oppose —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. If the occasional bickering bothers you, take it off your watchlist &mdash; problem solved.  "Human resources" belong to the contributors, who are volunteers and can allocate them as they wish.  There is no evidence that that effort would otherwise go into improving articles, and indeed articles sometimes get improved as a result of refdesk discussions.  I suppose there is some small burden on the non-human resources &mdash; servers, bandwith, etc &mdash; but the Foundation and developers can tell us if that is getting out of hand (WP:PERFORMANCE).  The refdesks provide a very valuable venue for actually explaining our content, making it more useful to users. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "If the occasional bickering bothers you, take it off your watchlist" - I have never put the refdesk on my watchlist, and I think I watchlisted ANI once for about a week and then realised that was a waste of time. Based on that, if I can still see complaints about trolls on the refdesk from just normal looking at admin backlogs, then something is wrong. "There is no evidence that that effort would otherwise go into improving articles, and indeed articles sometimes get improved as a result of refdesk discussions." Well then perhaps those people need to go to Quora or Stack Overflow or any number of other Q&A sites available on the internet. Wikipedia isn't the only website in the world - let's be good at our core mission, and not try and be a half-assed copy of some other website. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Quora doesn't allow you to use a (non-offensive) pseudonym and Stack Overflow is only for programming. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * idk if this was a joke or a miscommunication or some sort of combination between the two but they probably meant Stack Exchange lol  ~Helicopter  Llama~  14:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stack Exchange says that "Stack Exchange is a network of question-and-answer websites on topics in varied fields, each site covering a specific topic, where questions, answers, and users are subject to a reputation award process. The sites are modelled after Stack Overflow, a Q&A site for computer programming questions that was the original site in this network." Bus stop (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per my previous comments (as well as others') here. Deor (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but fix - The problems with the ref desks all stem from the fact that we have drifted away from original intent. Instead of simply aiding research by providing pointers to articles and sources (so editors can ‘’find’’ the answers to their questions... themselves), we have alllowed ourselves to venture into Original Research by attempting to answer the questions based on our own knowledge.  Then we drift into POV by adding commentary on eachother’s answers.  The solution is go back to basics.  Limit ref desk replies to simply pointing to an article or a source.  No explanations... no opinions... no commentary.  Just a link to article or source. Blueboar (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that would degrade much of the value. It's a feature, not a bug, that the refdesks are a freer-form venue than article (or even article talk) space.  There's a lot of useful explanation that can't be done within the (necessary) constraints of those spaces. --Trovatore (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose because otherwise I wouldn't be able to post problems like this. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes you would, you'd be able to go to Stack Overflow like this person did. Ritchie333 (talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I would actually be sympathetic to this proposal based on the very harsh allegations of it being some segregated community full of nonstop, unbridled misconduct, but after reviewing the situation, I'm simply not seeing this problem as stated. I see people asking genuine questions, and getting genuinely helpful answers. I don't see any out of control discussions full of empty banter, I don't see any editors unleashing torrents of incivility or personal attacks, I don't see unbridled petty bickering. I see people going there for help, and getting help, and that contradicts the notion that it's some failed, cancerous venue in need of complete scrapping. Sure, BLP violations are unacceptable, and those should be dealt with as they come up, just as they are in any other venue. Bickering between regulars, well that's never going to go away, as feuding editors will simply carry their feuds to other venues. I agree with that this smacks of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"&mdash;shutting down an entire section of the project is not a reasonable response to a handful of observed conflicts. And I don't find abstract comments such as "outlived its usefulness" convincing. It's obviously still useful to people; it's continuously used and continuously staffed, so for the life of me I can't go along with that strange, empty rationale either.  S warm   ♠  22:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Baby/ bathwater. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, never understood the purpose of RD on Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I once tried to figure out the origins of the Ref Desk. It's exact origins are lost. (As are many edits from that time period.) But the jist of it seemed to be that it was assumed that people would only ask questions about things Wikipedia didn't already cover, so a RefDesk was a way of exposing gaps in wikipedia's coverage. In those early days, people would generally answer questions by starting a new article that answered the question.
 * It's long since evolved past that, but I thought it was an interesting origin story. ApLundell (talk) 22:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've also wondered about the origin of the ref desk which precedes my involvement here. While I've heard your theory of also heard an alternate one – in the early days, readers would pose questions on article talk pages and other editors would attempt to answer them, which led to a lot of discussion unrelated to improving the article. Rather than just telling these people to go away (which might come across as rude) the ref desk served as an outlet so you can more politely tell these people to take it to the ref desk.


 * Both theories, of course, could have some element of truth. The distinction being that if the first argument is the sole rationale we are long past that and it might support an argument for closing the desk down, but if the second argument has any validity, it is still as true today as it was earlier. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:24, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support This proposal focuses on the wrong things. It focuses on the bickering, and not the more important fact that the Ref Desks are not serving any purpose nowadays. The number of unique question-askers being helped is way down. Why? Because the reference desk has been surpassed by other services. Stack Exchange, Quorra, and others like them are purpose-built from the ground up to provide this service, and they do a far better job.
 * Instead, we've got a cobbled together system that is not remotely ideal for purpose.
 * Go to the reference desk and ask "Why is the sky blue", people will instantly reply with "Who says it's blue? You have a cite?", "Define 'blue'.", and "Why didn't you Google it?". In one of the purpose-built question systems I mentioned, those replies would be voted down into oblivion, (along with trolling or inappropriate questions). But in our talk-page-based systems, those comments stick around, and so what is often a first-time wikipedia editor goes away forever, because we're obviously not interested in being helpful.
 * In the olden days, people put up with that, because despite those problems the Ref Desk was the best game in town. Now it's a relic. It drives people away more than it helps them.
 * And yes, on top of all that uselessness, it generates drama that spills over to ANI and elsewhere.
 * Wikipedia is the best encyclopedia in the world. Its question-answering service hasn't been able to claim that for a long time. It's time to cut it loose.
 * ApLundell (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to the reference desk and ask "Why is the sky blue", people will instantly reply with "Who says it's blue? You have a cite?", "Define 'blue'.", and "Why didn't you Google it?" - Huh, no. I am confident the former two will not happen. "why didn't you Google it" could happen, but most likely in the form of "Literally the first Google result: [link that answers the question]", so that part of the argument is factually false. (If the concern is attacks like "Learn to use search engines, you rump-fed ronyon", you might have a point, but that is a different one.) Tigraan <span title="Send me a silicium letter!" style="color:">Click here to contact me 14:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: but Reform. It should enforce a focus on sources (not discussions). All answers should provide at least one source. And an admin should be allowed to patrol the desk and remove offending posts without drama, in the same way as an admin of every forum on he internet. Hofhof (talk) 22:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. - The function of answering questions has existed since the earliest days of Wikipedia. The reference desk was created as a spin-off of the Help page because those asking for help in editing Wikipedia were being overwhelmed by the factual questions being asked. We knew that both kinds of questions would keep coming in and would need to be handled somewhere. And answering the factual questions has led to numerous article improvements and even some new articles. Rmhermen (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. As long as you ask a question whose answer people know, it's a good place to go.  For example, see the "Do some people in Indonesia eat pork?" section in the current version of WP:RDH.  In response to this simple question, Hofhof was provided with articles and off-wiki links that provided an answer to the question.  How is that a problem?  Meanwhile, strong oppose a requirement that all answers must provide a source.  Please read the reference interview article; when I'm sitting at the reference desk and helping a student, I don't generally start off with answers: I generally start off with clarification questions like "Are you familiar with searching our databases" or "Where have you looked so far".  This is a key element of what we professional librarians do at academic reference desks, and prohibiting it would be quite harmful.  We should encourage good information seeking behavior, rather than retarding it by enacting a prohibition on clarifications.  Nyttend (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * PS, when did you ever go to a physical reference desk and get badgered by the librarian? We don't do that, because it's not professional — our job is helping people solve their information needs better than an underinformed search ("Google can give you a million answers; a librarian can give you the right answer", to quote something I saw on a listserv today), not showing off.  At worst, we need to redirect problematic questions; see philosophical discussion at  with examples such as "I want to freebase cocaine" coming from someone who looks like a bum, or "I want to learn about suicide methods" from a distressed teenager.  This also provides a way to get rid of trolls; what's the excitement in asking a provocative question, only to be told "This isn't a question that we're able to answer"?  Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I was asked by to comment on reference desks from a public library perspective. In general, at public library desks, we are asked a lot questions from the interesting "How many volcanoes are there under the ocean?" to the mundane "What does the horoscope for Leo say today?" If the question is already phrased well, we find and/or direct them to the sources they need. If the question is confusing, we do a reference interview with them and try to figure out what the person really wants. This can have a lot of back and forth and it should have as much clarification as needed to narrow a search. We also don't tell anyone their questions are trivial or comment in general on what they want to learn about. We are to stay neutral and, for example, I don't tell people "ghosts aren't real" when they want a Ghost Hunter book. We also take all questions seriously and actually spend a lot of time referring people to social services or legal services as needed. I hope this perspective is useful to the discussion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you allow anybody to come in off the street and come behind the counter to help? No? Can you say why not? Our "reference desks" are wide open to literally anybody with internet access and the slightest ability to write in English; this applies to both questioners and responders. Very few responders have any interest in library science, let alone the necessary skills, so I'm not sure what relevance your experience has to our situation. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, we don't; you have to have an ML(I)S. We also don't let anybody to come in off the street and write the content (in most cases, you have to have a PhD), but that's the whole idea of this project.  In article-writing, we have standards for what's expected, whether crucial (e.g. don't infringe other people's copyright, and don't misspell everything) or just something we decided (e.g. bold the first appearance of the article title in the typical article, and don't link every word), and we ensure that those standards are followed, whether by going around and fixing problems or working with problem editors to help them to know what to do (and imposing sanctions if really necessary).  In the same way, we would do well to improve the reference desk by developing standards and ensuring that they're followed.  Nyttend (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know how much more evidence you need that, when push comes to shove, there is no community will to enforce standards at the reference desks, precisely because the desks are not central to the the project's mission. When I see clear signs that the community has grown such a will, I will oppose elimination of the desks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Refocus Ref desks should help people find references for answers to help build the encyclopedia. Certainly not all requests are going to be "Where a source for this specific data I need?", and some might take a bit of discussion to get at what exactly information is needed and where to source that from, but the end goal of a request should be to have either an answer to take back into an article to add with a WP:V-meeting source, or resolve that the information can't be found. As soon as discussion starts or verves in to something that is not going to end up helping improve an article, it needs to be closed. --M ASEM (t) 23:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose The newer editors need an place to get their information. <mark style="background:Silver"> Bobherry  Talk   Edits  00:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That ... is not what goes on at the reference desk. People ask general knowledge questions. The vast majority of them are asking for their own purposes, not to edit the encyclopedia.  In fact a large fraction of the traffic is from a small number of regular questioners who ask whatever random question they have off the top of their head, even though they have no use for the information. ApLundell (talk) 06:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose I don't disagree that there are stupid questions on there that don't belong, but for the couple times I've used it, it's been a wealth of knowledge. I've said it before in other outlets, but I think more discretion needs to be given (or practiced) on closing out questions which aren't worth the community's time. I've sat on the sidelines in awe about the level the community is willing to sink to, to answer some of these, like how hard you have to kick a gorilla in the nuts to incapacitate it which is amusing (and yes, I also kinda wanted to know the answer), but things like that don't really belong. Drewmutt ( ^ᴥ^ ) talk  00:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obvious oppose and let's assume bad faith. People are literally arguing here that Wikipedia shouldn't compete with commercial operations that allow people to contribute their knowledge to the company's vast database of copyrighted material.  In other words, why have Wikipedia at all when we can all be property?  I know people make a big deal out of assuming good faith, but when people who do nothing useful (and no, deleting and reducing our articles isn't useful) turn up to break a core feature of the site, I don't believe that bullshit anymore.  I don't know which of that handful of sites listed above thinks we compete with them too hard but until proven otherwise I think I should assume one of them has something to do with this just as I should assume that the news organizations that are getting news aggregators banned and restricted might have something to do with the anti-news crusade.  These people will not stop with this -- they'll be right back looking to get people banned because they tried to ask questions about our unclear articles on the talk pages if Refdesk isn't available.  They'll follow us to Wikiversity and ruin that if we try to run there.  They will ban questions, ban news, ban honest biographies -- everything but whitewashed PR spam and the endless succession of video game Featured Ads on the Main Page, which are SACROSANCT.  They will not stop until Wikipedia is a smoking hole in the ground, not until we are all literal meat on their tables.  Deletionists delete -- it's what they do.  I am tired of the internet of greed, of censorship and intimidation and everything that internet was not about before the corporations came and shat all over it, and Wikipedia is one of the last things still partly in their way. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Baby bathwater etc. That said there have been some problems there. In particular I think we need to extend/step up NOTFORUM enforcement vis a vis the Refdesks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This proposal seems to have arisen out of pique at the failure of an ANI proposal to get me topic banned from hiding (medical/legal advice) or removing material -- patent BLP violations -- at the various desks I frequent. There is a certain clique that feels every bit of gossip and requests that are "interesting" deserve to be addressed when they would not be tolerated according to policy (BLP, DISCLAIMER) or guidelines anywhere else in the project.
 * The essence of the problem is acting like the same rules don't apply.
 * That being said, the ref desks serve a vital and useful function, such as identification/translation of objects and texts uploaded to the project, and pointing users toward articles and resources that can elucidate a subject or verify that a certain critter is indeed a swallowtail butterfly caterpillar or a reference to the hairstyles of Cossack warriors (two subjects from the past). There's cruft that could easily be googled, and scatology, speculation, and POV pushing -- but that can easily be handled by applying the same rules as do to the rest of the project.
 * Users may note I haven't posted since the 12th. I am not young or in the best health and was discharged from the hospital late on the 19th and am physically and mentally exhausted.  I may not participate much for a few days.  But I don't think cutting the baby in two is a useful solution here stemming from a dispute that involved me elsewhere a few weeks back. μηδείς (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it really those for the ban behind this? I didn't keep track.  But I would ask you to take the complaints seriously.  From what I saw out of those edits, you delete about 1/3 useless unanswerable threads, 1/3 silly threads of little interest, and 1/3 threads that seem to surprise you somehow.  I mean, I don't trust your diagnosis of sock puppets, and the way I see it, if an editor wants to delve into the thought process by which today's justifiably pedo-paranoid society still dresses little girls in short skirts, that's a fair thing to psychoanalyze.  I think your baby-to-bathwater ratio is too high, and the reason I didn't vote there was I would have had to vote in favor of the ban, which isn't one of my interests on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Break for editing

 * Oppose I have asked questions at both the Science and Maths reference desks that were not appropriate for article talk pages, but have ultimately led me to understand the issue I was asking about, and fed back into article improvements. On the question of sourcing / external links: obviously they are often very helpful (and necessary if material is ultimately going to be added into an article).  But sometimes, particularly in Science and Maths, just to be led through the correct reasoning can be enough to explode a personal misconception -- eg a misunderstanding I once had about projective representations of orthogonal groups, and how they differ from normal representations.  Ref desk was a much better place to clear that up; then, once I understood the subject better, I was in a much better position to assess strengths and weaknesses in our articles.  I also had experience recently of quite a broad query, inspired by some coverage of a topic off-wiki, that ultimately led to quite a detailed specific content section to be added to a particular article.  (And those are just from my handful of experiences, as a very	infrequent visitor to the Ref Desks).
 * But I disagree with Masem immediately above, that the purpose of Ref Desk is to improve articles. At most that is a useful spin-off, sometimes.  Rather, the purpose of Ref Desk is to let Wiki contributors use their knowledge and experience to answer user queries, which, as many have noted above, can be energising both for those answering and for those asking questions -- eg very often in Science and Maths to work through the implications of article content that may be much too specific to include in any actual article itself.  For example a few months ago I asked how well the mathematics of actual black hole physics matched their depiction in a recent Doctor Who episode.  (Answer: well, not really).  That was not a question that was particularly likely to add to either our content on black holes, or even our content on the DW episode (other than a note on the talk page).  But it was a useful and enjoyable and ultimately satisfying discussion to work through all the same.  Sometimes going through that process, from quite a specific initial query, may indeed reveal general weaknesses in an article that can be improved.  Sometimes it may help an editor get past a road-block in their understanding that then enables them to contribute much more effectively.  But even when neither of the above turn out to be the case, in my view the forum is still very valuable. Jheald (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - The Ref Desk has also been, in my view, completely ancillary to the proper focus of this project, which is the creation of an online encyclopedia. If the WMF feels that a Ref Desk-type facility is needed, it can be spun-off into a separate project, but I see no need for it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose – I only frequent the math desk, so I don't know the culture elsewhere, and my view is probably somewhat skewed because of that. I really empathize with the supporters, but similar to some others' experiences, a not-insignificant number of my edits have been to articles I found because someone linked to them from a ref desk question (or answer).  So yeah, there's definitely a certain stink in the area, but I still think it would be a net plus to keep them around.  --Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am an IP editor and I suppose my vote won't count because of that, but I just wanted to say that I come there to ask questions every now and then and they've been a great source of information. I can't think of any other place on the internet where you can ask questions without so much as opening an account, and usually get quick quality answers. Please take this into account instead of comparing it with an unreasonable ideal of what a reference desk should be. 93.136.33.184 (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - It should be significant that practically none of the oppose !votes attempt to refute the fundamental WP:NOT issue. Instead, keep because it's fun, because it's useful, because sometimes it leads to activity related to improving the encyclopedia, because it fosters community, etc. These are also reasons why Quora, Facebook, Slackexchange, Deviantart, Pinterest, Imdb, and a whole bunch of other sites exist (i.e. sites that are not encyclopedias). If we were to open a consumer goods shopping forum which let people talk about deals they've seen, whether one product is better than another, how the customer service was at such and such store, etc. that would also occasionally lead to encyclopedia-related activity, it would also be useful, it would also foster community, etc... but it's an obvious WP:NOT issue, because it isn't actually relevant to building an encyclopedia. If you oppose, please help me to understand how to reconcile the RD with NOT and/or why fundamental policies like NOT should not apply? All of this said, I would absolutely support a proposal for a new WMF-hosted Q&A project. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 02:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it irrelevant when libraries usually have reference desks? Are talk pages unencyclopedic too then? -- Menti  fisto  09:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wishy-washy sort-of support The current implementation of the RD and the way its been treated historically are clearly not in keeping with the mission of en.wiki. That said, there is equally clearly a demand for a general factual question-and-answer service under the WMF umbrella and every effort should be made to support a WMF-endorsed RD under a separate name. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 02:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose More than half the stuff I learn on Wikipedia comes from these desks. If they were gone, I'd be twice as dumb. Wouldn't edit many of the articles I do, either, for not seeing them. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:33, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The RD is unencyclopedic, like memecruft and Trump scandal overcoverage. KMF (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (Moved from discussion section; pinging – Sb  2001  02:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Strong support – the Ref Desk has become a perennial sideshow, and is not anywhere near part of Wikipedia's core mission. If someone wants to keep this up, do it at another website, not here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Support - If Wikipedia is not prepared to build specific infrastructure for a Q&A system, I don't see how WP:RD can survive. What is needed is the political will at the WikiMedia Foundation level to start a Q&A system with it's own software base.  If they combined a custom Q&A software platform with the Wikipedia culture - I think it would be a wonderful thing for mankind.  But it's ridiculous to continue to try to wedge a Q&A system on top of a system designed for making comments about articles which in turn was shoehorned onto a system designed for editing articles.  WP:RD either needs 10 software engineers for a year - or it needs to be quietly laid to rest. SteveBaker (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the software itself isn't appropriate for a Q&A format? But it is for discussions like these, which they often end up (':' is useful). -- Menti  fisto  09:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't often participate at the Reference Desks, but in the past I have both asked and answered questions there in discussions that seemed productive to me. If there are problems there, it would be reasonable to crack down on inappropriate discussions and warn, and eventually block, those who refuse to comply with the rules. But I don't think the problems are so severe that the Reference Desks should be deleted altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. I had never been there, so I did a little basic research on them and this is what I came up with:
 * Questions are rarely relevant to anything to do with encyclopedia content.
 * Serious questions could be answered by the questioners themselves by doing the same research as the Reference regulars.
 * The desks are manned by a handfull of regulars, some of whom are in fact quite knowledable and provide intelligent answers.
 * Other regulars appear to be simply hovering over the desk to be the first to make any answer at all, which often is not helpful.
 * The Travel desk already redirects  to  Wikivoyage.
 * I believe the Reference Desk should be split off from Wikipedia and created on the same lines as the othe non-encyclopedic WikiMedia projects. The regulars might not appreciate such a move because their participation there counts towards their edits, but that's the way things happen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think many editors, such as myself, move effortlessly between the Reference desks and our articles. I don't work primarily on one or the other. I go where my intellectual curiosity takes me, and where there is work that I see that needs to be done. And I think it is a pointless argument that the Reference desks have nothing to do with the articles. This is entirely a function of the way in which one thinks. It is not a distinction inherent in the two parts of the encyclopedia. I think everyone participating on the Reference desks is mindful of the existence of the encyclopedia. The most basic response is "See title of article." An important problem with the Reference desks is the constant bombardment by prank questions. Smart-alecky questions are fielded on Quora too. (I realize you did not mention Quora.) I think we are better at dealing with these sort of questions than Quora though our methods could use some improvement too. Bus stop (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , 'many editors' is not supported by diffs. I know my answers above aren't either, but the are based on a significant random sample. Not all of the desks are the same but there is hugely disproportionate number of questions that are not remotely concerned with building this encyclopedia or searching for the information in it. This also concerns long discussions on scientific and math threads, besides the troll questions which the 'regulars' can't resist playing with. For some regulars, their 'work' on the RD concerns a lot of their 'Wikipedia' work. We must not allow ourselves to get detracted from the fact that we are an encyclopedia and not another Internet Answers.com or Quora and I'm personally not in the slightest bit interested in invesithagting sites like those; my interest is in maintaining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and that's what I signed up for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —indeed we are not another "Answers.com" or "Quora". You say "my interest is in maintaining Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, and that's what I signed up for." Why have an encyclopedia? I'll answer my own question. An encyclopedia serves to banish ignorance. "Answers.com" does not banish ignorance. It entertains questions like "Is Pokemon GO dangerous?" Or "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Or "Does Zeus live on mount Olympus?" "Answers.com" perpetuates ignorance. I don't think "Quora" is much better. Our Reference desks could do a better job of keeping it intellectual. But our Reference desks are worlds apart from those commercial ventures. You say that "there is hugely disproportionate number of questions that are not remotely concerned with building this encyclopedia". With all due respect you do not know the degree to which the Reference desks are constructive of the encyclopedia and vice versa. We are talking about flawed but successful entities engaged in similar pursuits. The two are not the same but they are not all that different. There is more finesse and nuance in fielding questions, any of which could be trolling questions, asked in bad faith, for no reason other than to pull a prank on the desks. We should regard every question initially suspiciously and we should require the inquirer to engage in a substantive dialogue. They should be advised in boilerplate where they ask the question that they may need to engage in dialogue to help others understand the nature and the scope of the question they are asking. This will discourage trolls. Unlike "Answers.com" and "Quora" we should have a vetting process. I share your concerns about the special qualities of the encyclopedia. But what we should be trying to do is make the Reference desks more like the encyclopedia, at least concerning the intellectual dimension of the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , thanks for your efforts, but you haven't addressed my comment, and nothing anyone says here will change my opinion. Nothing is done at the RD to discourage troll and Questions like "Is Pokemon GO dangerous?" Or "Why did the chicken cross the road?" Or "Does Zeus live on mount Olympus?" are commonplace, while many others that are perhaps of a more serious nature still have absolutely nothing even remotely to do with our encyclopedia. At the very best, unless all such questions are ignored, the RD can be closed down or given its own Wikimedia  project. At worst, it's not doing any harm, but those responding could probably be spending their time more effectively by helping in some genuine critical issue areas such as maintaining the quality of our existing and new articles. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —it is probably the same people asking the question. At Quora.com they ask "Is Pokemon GO dangerous?" and at Answers.com they ask "Is Pokemon GO dangerous?" I can't find where it is asked at our Reference desks but it is possible we have been spoofed too. From our vantage point there is a more intellectual way of responding and a less intellectual way of responding. The question ("Is Pokemon GO dangerous?") should not serve as jumping-off point for a meandering and leisurely discussion in which we shoot the breeze and everybody has a jolly good time. There are many news reports in popular publications addressing that question. As the Reference desk to an encyclopedia we can suggest that the inquirer use a search engine to find information on this and we can provide several examples of sources that address that question. Doing so allows us to stay true to our identity as an institution that values information for its own sake. What we should not do is get into a discussion as to whether Pokemon GO is "dangerous" or not. There is a smart-alecky aspect to that question that undermines the seriousness of purpose that distinguishes us from for instance quora.com and answers.com. Bus stop (talk) 01:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose the reference desks are a valuable resource and the fact that someone has been misbehaving on them is not much of a reason to close them down. I am open to the idea of splitting them out into a standalone project but that's not the same thing as closing them down. The claim that "BLP violations are not only accepted but actively produced and defended by some of the more frequent ref desk responders" frankly needs something approaching evidence if it is to be taken seriously.  Hut 8.5  06:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, I've been thinking of proposing that the Reference Desks should be made searchable by Google. They're interesting and drive traffic. And, as people above have mentioned, closing the Desks will just make people ask their questions on article talk pages, where they will be ignored. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They already are; see [//www.google.com.au/search?dcr=0&q=desmense+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&oq=desmense+site%3Aen.wikipedia.org&gs_l=psy-ab.3...10235.13276.0.13355.22.12.0.0.0.0.453.1655.2-3j0j2.5.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..17.1.399...33i160k1.0.5Xha8l6oh-M this GOogle search], for example. Graham 87 11:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support The reference desks have nothing to do with Wikipedia's only function, which is to create a high quality free encyclopedia. Yes, I sometimes read refdesk content and even contribute from time to time. But it is a troll magnet, a source of ongoing conflict, and a diversion for several well-known editors from creating and improving encyclopedic content. Let sites like Quora handle these ephemeral inquiries, and let's instead refocus on writing, expanding and referencing encyclopedia articles. Nothing else is important here. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I find the reference desks very useful for identifying holes in Wikipedia's coverage. Articles I have created based on questions to the ref desk include Calendar (stationery) (original question - incredibly, we didn't have a proper article on calendars until someone pointed it out at Ref Desk!), Kokomo Jr. (original question), birthday effect (original question), Loose wheel nut indicator (original question), and I've added missing info or fixed errors in plenty of other articles. Without the Ref Desks, we lose a significant mechanism for improving the encyclopedia. Smurrayinchester 07:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose useful service, and important for editors in ways which would cause real harm to the coverage, accuracy, and therefore quality of the encyclopedia if it were removed. It has compared favorably to science library reference desks, in accuracy if not rapidity. If there is a BLP problem on which admins should be exercising sanctions, I'm sure admins are no strangers to the desks or their regulars. 2A02:C7D:45A:1900:3569:4AC7:197D:9E79 (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose For example this question about the Otaheite Dog and Wolf let to Animals Drawn from Nature and Engraved in Aqua-tinta being created together with Animals drawn from Nature and engraved in aqua-tinta. How else could this have been achieved? People believing there is no benefit have not sorted the wheat from the chaff. Thincat (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reform, if possible. Enforcing existing RefDesk guidelines would go a long way.  However, with so many of the regulars indulging in activity that is not according to RefDesk guidelines, this will be difficult.  To pick one example, violating RefDesk guidelines by guessing and providing factually incorrect information  happens quite often.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Srongest possible oppose - I would argue it's one of the most important aspects of the project. What needs to be done is to ban some of the unpleasant characters that inhabit the desk and still haven't been banned for whatever reason, the Medeises and Baseball Buggses of this world. Fgf10 (talk) 09:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The only reference desk I'm familiar with is WP:RDH, and it's a pretty trouble free place which serves a useful purpose. I don't see any reason to close it. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That said some reform is needed. I think the biggest problem is that refdesks follow the same rules as talk pages, where anything anybody writes is sacred – you can't modify it, let alone delete it. In the best case, you can hat a particularly long rant or off-topic chat. I'd say refdesks should be treated a little bit more like article pages. If you see a response that does not further the goal of pointing the OP to a reliable source that is pertinent to their question, then you should have the right to go ahead and delete it (rather than closing the question; it might still get useful responses). Would it occasionally lead to revert wars? For sure, but we've got mechanisms for dealing with them already. Hopefully, after some time of active patrolling and deleting off-topic content from refdesks, the worst offenders should be more or less permanently driven off. — Kpalion(talk) 10:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, reluctantly, per ApLundell and SteveBaker. Either close them as out-of-scope and unsustainable in the long-term or fork them off to a new Wikimedia project and give them sufficient resources (e.g. an up/downvote system) for comments. I used to be an occasional contributor and regular reader of the desks, and I found them useful when I needed a question answered. However, recently I've enjoyed reading through the desks less and less ... whether it's because of changes in me or the contributors is hard to tell. I suspect that competition from Quora and other such sites might have caused a dropoff in participation (especially among newbies). Graham 87 11:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Every time some minor tiff blows up, this gets proposed. If you're not happy helping out at the ref desks, you are not required to.  Shutting it down because you don't like helping out is nonsensical.  99% of what goes on there is helpful to readers and users of Wikipedia, and the minor quarrels that break out are entirely like anything else anywhere on Wikipedia.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although reforms need to be done (particularly when it comes to enforcement of rules), I consider the reference desk as a net benefit to the encyclopedia. I've used it for years, and much of the information that goes in there does lead to improvements of and even creation of new articles. In addition, while there is the question of WP:NOT, it doesn't actually specify there that something like this isn't allowed. I sometimes think of the reference desk as something like a feedback form for the encyclopedia, kind of like if you wished to contact the publishers of traditional media (like encyclopedias). While the reference desks usually source answers from articles, it tends to go the other way as well. Overall, while the proposal does have some merit, it will probably be a net negative for the project as a whole. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per some of the above comments. Fix the problems but keep the project. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Dolphin  ( t ) 11:28, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Like Ritchie333, the only time I see something come up about the Ref Desk is when there are problems. I don't hear positive feedback, ever.  We have had considerable problems in the past with "helpers" going beyond the mission, giving medical advice, which opens us up for legal litigation.  Because we are a website, a reference desk isn't needed and software should be relied upon.  We could stand to improve some software and make searching easier for new readers, but the proper use of Google to find information here is always faster and more accurate.  It isn't everyone's fault there, but it has still outlived its usefulness and there is no way to properly police it without being draconian.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is ample positive feedback, it just doesn't get escalated outside the Ref Desk. — Kpalion(talk) 12:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. The refdesks do perform a service consistent with the mission of assisting researchers to navigate the encyclopedia.  There is no clear line between that assistance, and sometimes venturing off into discussion about general topics.  There are certainly some abuses of the refdesk, including some rather ineffectual trolls, but I don't find that these abuses are anywhere near extreme enough to suggest that the only solution is to close down the refdesk entirely.  Editors who frequent the RefDesk should probably be reminded from time to time not to be the enablers of their abuse.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose An encyclopaedia should try and provide good access to all comers. A search box is not a complete answer. All means of access are an integral part of an encyclopaedia. Not having a reference desk is like having a library without an index and a person to help people look it up or find an appropriate book. A large part of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is devoted to providing means whereby people can find appropriate articles. It is true that some regulars on the reference desks cause trouble. That they have not been dealt with appropriately is because admins are bloody useless in dealing with disruption. But even so and despite that the reference desks have much more activity than elsewhere, they have caused me far less bother than the numerous socks and persistent POV pushers and people with totally no sense of weight or relevance and the like I have encountered editing articles. If you want a quieter life improve the guidelines and deal with the few people who just cause trouble there and contribute little but don't destroy something that improves public access and engagement and has led to numerous improvements to the articles. Dmcq (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I think the Reference Desks serves a useful function that is consistent with Wikipedia's educational purpose.  Behavior issues should be resolved by dealing with the people exhibiting the behavior, not by killing the whole forum.  Deli nk (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. While our RefDesks aren't great (and StackExchange is usually better), they are easily accessible places where newcomers can ask questions. If we close our refdesks, expert editors will still find places to use as refdesks (I would use WikiProject talk pages or sometime article talk pages), but (a) these places have far less traffic (b) are harder to find for newbies and (c) using them as refdesks is going to be technically against our rules. In other words, closing the refdesks probably won't improve things very much, just make us even less helpful to outsiders. —Kusma (t·c) 13:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unless an alternative for asking help with factual information or references is created first, newbie editors and readers will loose a major source of genuine help. You can stamp down on the bickering by issuing the normal warnings & punishment to editors (temporary bans). Even seasoned editors need to be sometimes reminded of this. --Lgriot (talk) 14:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I use them for language translations, which can't be done anywhere else, either with sustained accuracy in translation, or in terms of cost, which they provide. Both the translate services, bing and google are not there yet. For simple work, no problem. But for real work, trying to extract meaningful translations is sometime a truly Sisyphean task. If you don't know the language, or can't define the outcome, it is almost impossible to find quick accurate translations on WP, outside the language desk. I've tried multiple channels, tried to build relationships in various types of places, organizations and even individuals,  but when payment is not offered, it sometimes problematic, even occasionally very difficult to get an accurate translation. Well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:03, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose per Smurrayinchester and Alansplodge.Summary for those challenged by TL:DR: a question-answering function is indeed encyclopedic, and the Reference Desks are useful to the community. I am a long-time editor with lots of mainspace edits, but the reference desks are the first place I go when I log on. For many years I have asked questions on Ref Desk and I have answered questions. I first check to see if the questioner could find he information in one of our articles, and if so I provide a link to the relevant articles. I see no more quibbling or bad behavior there than at ANI,AFD or DR, or on the talk pages of articles dealing with politics, religion, international disputes, politics,or  the history of invention. Hatting of offtopic responses and inappropriate questions is common. If the community agrees someone is disruptive, give him a topic ban. If there is no such consensus, then it is just someone's personal fit of pique and they can just go off and sulk. I do not see it as a trollfest. Troll quesions get hatted. Questioners who ask about some subject generally are urged to read the article perhaps with a link to the relevant subsection, and are invited to come back and ask a followup question if hey are still confused. In many cases, I have found that the relevant article was in need of improvement, and as a result I have edited the article, based on reliable sources, with inline references. In some cases,  have created an article where the topic in question is a notable subject lacking an article.  Some have claimed Quora is a better site. I wen there and found that I would have to let Quora "manage my Google contacts (no thanks) or I would have to "sign on with Facebook" by typing my username and password into a form they link to. Since I have no way of knowing whether they can see that password and ID, thus I am unable to use Quora. One does not need any logon to ask answers on the Reference Desk.  It was claimed that answering questions is not an encyclopedic function, but clearly ir is. When my family member bought a set of Britannica. It came with a set of question forms which could be sent in, and a researched answer would be provided by an anonymous researcher. I recall that the answers were several typed pages long, sometimes including reprints from research articles, or from "annual review of otolaryngology" type volumes.  This response does not preclude support for a separate spunoff project, but  as noted above, that would require resources from the Foundation to get it going. "Destroy the Ref Desks now and maybe later someone could somehow set up a reference project" is a silly ruse that might distract a child. Edison (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Break 2 (survey)

 * Strong Oppose. When my bike has a flat tire, I fix it, I don't throw it out. When my cats bicker, I don't give them both away. Shutting down the ref desks is WP:POINTY nonsense. Though there are persistent bad actors at WP:RD, a lot of good work gets done there. Often we help improve encyclopedia articles, and we serve the broader WMF goals to "collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally." SemanticMantis (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible oppose. The RDs are important forums for any kind of questions in terms of content. They are a great assistance when you are at a loss and need quick specialist support, but also for more profound reference. With their great variety and high reachability, the RDs are one of the major and significant lateral contributions to the project regarding the exchange processes on learning and explaining taking place here, as well as their important role as a nucleus of founded article improvements. Hence, it would mean a great loss to all parties involved to abandon those.--Cleph (talk) 15:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Remark: this account made its first edits all of 5 days ago. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Supporting remark; the account came to Help Desk, requested clarification on whether they could comment here, and were guided with encouragement.  Lourdes  02:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've been around with different accounts before (also frequently and beneficially using the RDs) and also edit as IP.--Cleph (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably not the best idea, ... WP:SOCK. You need to declare your other accounts on your user page. – Sb  2001  17:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read carefully: I said I've been around with different accounts before. Best--Cleph (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you have placed a 'retired' card on your previous pages, then. Probably still a good idea to declare your previous identities, unless you are doing a proper clean start. – Sb 2001  18:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The rational organization is to make these desks a WMF separate project, where they can have their own fit for purpose moderation policies and living people policies, etc. And such separate organization will still allow for whatever benefit there may be. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per SoWhy et al. GABgab 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per above. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and not a forum or OR/opinion-based Q/A site.  -  F ASTILY   15:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly out of scope of the project, and unlikely to be used by the average reader. James (talk/contribs) 15:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I am a RefDesk regular and believe that most of those who make a request for a reference actually end up with one. Others are directed to the correct article - not always a simple task. I have personally created about 10 WP articles on the basis of RefDesk queries and improved dozens (or hundreds) of others. It's also a tool that I use on a fairly regular basis while writing articles myself. I accept fully that there is often a lot of pointless chatter and bickering on the RefDesks (guilty myself now and again), but I believe that should not detract from the good work that is done there. Alansplodge (talk) 09:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC) (Transferred from discussion section; pinging . – Sb 2001  16:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Oppose. It's well within Wikipedia's educational scope and used by many average readers. Peacock (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per the very clear and accurate diagnosis given by (and as a person who actually does spend some time reading and commenting on the (math) reference desk).  In practice, there is no connection to the mission of Wikipedia. --JBL (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but I do think that every single response to a legitimate question should be sourced as opposed to our tolerating unscientific wild-assed guesses, stupid often puerile jokes from regulars, and really anything that wouldn't be tolerated from a real reference librarian in a real world situation. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I agree, if the RefDesk were completely different than it is now, it would be great! --JBL (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose - Oppose times infinity. I've never opposed a suggestion more! I don't have a clue what the person who originated this is talking about regarding some people who consider this a "walled off" whatever but I know that I have posted questions that were very deep and have received excellent answers. And I'm not someone who is incapable of finding things on Google or Wikipedia myself. I can usually find just about any info I want. But every once in a while I'll have a very specific question that I can't get (or understand) the answer to and the Reference desk is a fantastic resource. If there are problems with some editors... to be honest I didn't even understand what the problems are supposed to really be but whatever they are there must be better ways to solve them then shutting the whole thing down. That would be a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I emphatically oppose the idea with ever fibre of my being! --MadScientistX11 (talk) 17:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The solution is to warn the editors who continue to bicker that they'll face being blocked, not to close the whole thing down. Duh.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The opening statement of this RFC says the Reference Desks are a "source of bickering" and have "some people who feel that the rules of enwiki don't apply there".  These concerns could just as easily be expressed regarding almost any other aspect of Wikipedia as well.  The solution is to deal with those people who are the sources of the bickering and those people who feel the rules don't apply to them, not to delete the Reference Desks because of them.  TimBuck2 (talk) 18:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per many arguments above. Just because a few jerks can abuse the refdesks one way or the other is not the reason to bow down and close them altogether. Humans will be humans, the entire Wikipedia regularly fends off various nasty stuff. I, for one, have a positive opinion on refdesks, having received several meaningful replies. Brandmeistertalk  19:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose I've ever lodged in an !vote on this project to date. With respect to some of the supporters, some of whose policy opinions I often align with to a very high degree, I think the proposal is a clear-cut case of curing the disease by killing the patient. The reference desks are far too valuable an asset to this project's mission to be dissolved over the (admittedly increasingly problematic) attitudes of a handful of editors who will not self-restrain themselves (plus some trolls there for simple 'lolz').  To my mind, the argument is something akin to the suggesting that we should dissolve ANI, because it is habitually abused by people with an axe to grind or who are otherwise disruptive.  Yes, it certainly is, but those headaches are miniscule in relation to the utility we extract from that space.


 * So it is with the RefDesks, which enhance and further Wikipedia's core educational purpose in at least three ways. First, questions asked on the desks sometimes directly lead to additional information or sources, removal or adjustment of erroneous statements, or other content contributions for our mainspace articles--even if this doesn't happen nearly so often as I'd like.  Second, Ref Desk answers more generally fill holes for our readers (either in their personal knowledge or in our own content) who have already read our relevant articles on a given topic and 1) are having (for any number of idiosyncratic reasons) difficulty in parsing the meaning of those articles, 2) have inadequate knowledge to synergize the content of multiple articles, or 3) have hit upon a novel question that isn't likely to be covered in any one particular article.  These answers are then archived to help others who may be similarly situated in relation to the knowledge in question. But even where these factors are not in play, the process (in the overwhelming majority of cases) aligns very precisely with the educational purpose that is at the core of all work on this project.  The RefDesks may be one of the most atypical outgrowths of the encyclopedia, but they very certainly augment it and further the precise goals for which we have created it.


 * Now, do the desks have issues that need community attention? Unfortunately, the answer is yes--indeed, I think we are long overdue for this discussion.  Although most regulars fully understand that the desks operate within Wikipedia's policy framework and that contributions there must be made consistent with broader community outlook on open-ended discussions, there are a handful (though the names that come to mind for me could be listed with the fingers for one hand) who regularly abuse WP:NOTAFORUM and other principles of WP:What Wikipedia is not.  They regularly engage in ego-stroking exercises by engaging in wildly speculative answers (unsupported by references) to as many questions as possible, even those that are in topic areas that are clearly beyond their ability to talk about in a truly informed manner, and where they make one un-WP:verified claim or wild guess after another.  They will even do this in cases where their speculation could well prove risky for the person reading it and where it could create liability for the project, even where they have to manifestly violate the RefDesk's own explicit guidelines and higher level project/WMF policies.  And all accompanied by forum-like divergences into unrelated topics and chummy banter that drags far beyond what the Wikipedia community regards as appropriate for our workspaces.  These are real problems, and for many years now I (among others) have been warning the local community of editors at the RefDesks that if we did not resolve them ourselves, the wider community was bound to step eventually, and we would probably find their solutions more restrictive than the reasonable middle ground solutions we might have arrived at ourselves.  Well, that day has finally come, and frankly, I'm happy to have a broad community discussion on how to preserve the unique value and role served by the desks, while also enforcing referencing and reliability in our answers and an end to free passes to those who have decided they are entitles to wax philosophic on every discussion that takes place there.


 * Fortunately, the issues are not really all that difficult to parse or address. Above, Mandruss suggests that those who favour a reform of the desks under-appreciating the extent of the problems from lack of familiarity with the desks, and tacitly asks if they appreciate that there would need to be enforcement mechansisms and additional oversight, including reliable blocks for those who just cannot accept limitations on their comments. The answer to each of those questions (at least for some regulars) is not just "yes", but rather "Yes--and we've been advocating for that for years".  If we removed just the three worst offenders today, the amount of sheer speculation on the desks would drop by 80% instantly.  What has been lacking all of these years is not a clear way forward; our project policies already outline what is and is not permissive in most instances and we just need to create some sharper local guidelines which demonstrate how the reference desks should work within them (and I think these guidelines more or less write themselves), plus get a few admins on board who would be willing to issue warnings and blocks to those editors who just refuse to follow said guidelines.  What has been missing is not solutions, but rather the will to implement them. The RefDesks are a valuable part of the project and problematic behaviour there can be controlled with similar mechanisms to those employed to control problematic behaviour on the project in general. We certainly shouldn't scuttle a space of such inherent value to both those who use this project and those who build it, simply because of the (admittedly long un-checked) behaviour of a very small minority of contributors who don't appreciate that there is a difference between Wikipedia and Reddit, and who would probably find a warmer reception to their contributions on the latter.  S n o w  let's rap 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (having only scanned through this TL;DR) so what,, could you possibly have against splitting the ref desk off into its own Wiki and letting it take its silly questions and nonsense answers with it? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kudpung: My initial impulse was to respond to your gracious invitation here with the following "I tell you what, why don't you do me the courtesy of taking the time to read my entire post (it's a little long, but hardly a treatise) before asking me to engage in debate over the opinions I expressed within it, and I'll do you the courtesy of taking the time to craft a well considered response.  Which is, in any event, a pretty big ask, considering your 'silly questions and nonsense answers' phrasing doesn't paint the picture of someone truly open to a different perspective on the issue." In any event, this RfC doesn't ask for input on a move, it asked for input on a closure.
 * That said, the issue you raise is one I have considered while following this discussion over the last week or so and there are quite a few obvious points and questions about that notion that I haven't seen anyone address--so I'll take the opportunity to answer your question all the same. I honestly don't have any particular strong feeling about what domain the desks rest at.  I happen to think they are most convenient where they are, and that the reasoning for moving them is superficial and seems to impute to something like "Good enough for Wikimedia's educational mission, but not Wikipedia's".  While projects do spin off from one-another from time to time, they usually have a much larger footprint than the desks.  I frankly wonder if those who are supporting such a change understand the amount of technical and policy effort that option would entail for the community, to say nothing of the WMF process. If any among us are volunteering to spearhead that community effort, recruit the technical volunteers, and organize the process, and are proposing we wait to move the desks until the domain, software and forum are prepared, well that's one thing.  But I haven't seen anyone saying that. I hope I managed to sustain your interest through this one.   S n o w  let's rap 05:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, but I didn't expect another TL;DR as a reply. What yu may not be aware of is that every RfC of this kind, however straigthforward the proposal statement, wanders off into lots of alternative suggestions.What is also clear is that many of those voting 'oppose' appear to voting on a 'I like the RD' basis rather than any considered pragmatic rationale.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to alternative suggestions--though I prefer options that are pragmatic (or at least remotely viable) as opposed to pie-in-the-sky notions requiring a large mobilization of work and resources, proposed by people who clearly aren't volunteering to provide either. But no, I don't oppose third options in RfCs. If anything I'd expect someone with your perspective on the RfC to take exception with the third option here--afterall, it's split off a fraction of !votes that (possibly) may have gone for a delete !vote otherwise.  Not that it was ever going to be enough.  It was a foregone conclusion that most community members would oppose this ill-advised cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face proposal, as is now clearly reflected in the results of this discussion. Notwithstanding your desire to frame those editors on the "other side" of this issue as operating from an "irrational/WP:ILIKE" position, because they happen to have a different view from you.  Nearly 100 editors have voted in clear support for retaining the desks.  Just how many of those are you suggesting "clearly voted on an 'I like the RD' basis"?  S n o w  let's rap 06:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the nominator does not deserve this RfC to be characterised as an ill-advised cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face proposal - it is not, and just because it may not be gaining traction, is not a reason to condemn it. Please also do not take my comments out of context, earlier in this RfC I provided a clear assessment of my view of the situation and I stand by it. On the other hand, I don't care two hoots about the RfC or its outcome, but I do feel sufficiently qualified to vote here. I think we're done now with this sub thread. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A) I'm not "condemning the RfC" just because I disagree with the proposal. I think there was no chance said proposal was ever going to succeed, but that doesn't mean I think the nom erred in starting a community discussion on the matter--I understand that impulse, and discussions can be useful, regardless of outcome. B) I don't see where I took your comments out of context, and I've certainly nowhere suggested that you shouldn't be !voting.  I'm genuinely confused how you keep arriving at these conclusions that don't align with anything I've said.  S n o w  let's rap 22:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - As a non-registered user who has frequented the RDs for some years, I won't vote, but I will express some observations. First, if you look at, say, the Computing Desk as it sits right now, you will see zero instances of bickering or other inappropriate behavior.  You will see reasonable questions being asked and some good answers being given.  So it's not as if the whole group of RDs is a total cesspool.  I have supplied answers that were appreciated and I have asked questions myself that got answers I appreciated.  And second, I agree with the statements to the effect that the RDs would be better off without certain individuals, but with Wikipedia being what it is, I don't imagine it's likely that this would ever happen.  --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How many questions about Nazis does the computing desk get? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How many "questions about Nazis" (assuming you refer to contributions by the resident Nazi socktroll) doe the refdesks get in total? I may be wrong, but I'd say it's less than one a week. This is a bit of a nuisance, but it's not a serious problem. Also, how appropriate is it to close down a useful venue used by a large number of people due to one troll? That would be rewarding and encouraging trolling! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Generally support the idea of moving the Ref Desk stuff to its own sister project. It's not really part of WP's mission, and seems to cause a lot of problems. Not just BLP ones. I've encountered other issues, like people giving bad, one-sided advice at the language ref desk, and this directly inspiring wrongheaded editwarring both at English-language usage articles and at MoS.  The problem here is that ref desk stuff is basically original research; while we can do OR in limited ways in projectspace, when this spills over into mainspace, all bets are off.  I agree broadly with filelakeshoe and Ritchie333 above.  There is potentially a "market" for a Q&A site with open moderation, meanwhile the nature of things have changed enough that our RD is just a troll playground.   I'm not at all swayed by the argument in the discussion subsection below that RD is just misunderstood and only people participating in it have a clear picture. I think the opposite is likely true. By way of analogy, if a bunch of well-meaning amateurs set about doing fertilizer experiments in my front yard, I don't need to join them and experience for myself the fun or the importance of their work to make up my mind that I don't want them doing it to my lawn in particular.  RD is an experiment that's going on for a long time, with results that seem rather too mixed to me.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  00:33, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Our mission is to write an encyclopedia and it sounds like the reference desks not only fail to contribute, they actively encourage discussions not allowable on other talk pages. To that end, they should be closed. If Wikimedians choose to create a sister project to kibitz, then good for them. It doesn't sound to me like they enjoy editing here, anyway. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 01:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Our mission is to write an encyclopedia and not be so serious about it. I've found the Reference Desks excellent go-to forums for clarifying stuff not related to editing on Wikipedia. I've redirected numerous new editors to the Help Desk when they've asked questions not related to the Help Desk. I've even congratulated RefDesk members in the past for giving brilliant insights into any and every question. We need to have such a desk that enables the free flow of thought, not restricted to sticking to a square encyclopedic box.  Lourdes  02:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please point to the Wikipedia policy that says we shouldn't be serious about building an encyclopedia? I'd say that almost completely the opposite is the case: the vast majority of our policies exist to make sure that we are serious about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello BMK, hope you're doing good. My statement "...not be so serious about it..." is obviously different from your translation of "...we shouldn't be serious about building an encyclopedia...". Let me reiterate: We're all serious about building the encyclopedia; but shouldn't be "so serious" that we curb down on each and every place where there's a not so serious discussion taking place. I hope I'm able to put across the point appropriately to you now. Warmly.  Lourdes  02:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Reform/refocus. I think the terminology is throwing this discussion. There are two different questions: Whether WP should provide a "general reference desk", providing sourced answers for any question, akin to what libraries at least used to offer, and where WP editors should go to discuss topic-specific sourcing. The latter begins to answer the former. If we had good forums for unearthing topic-specific sourcing, this conversation would have been preempted. The "ref desk" has always appeared to me as a hodgepodge, best for broad answers to broad questions, not really for drilling down into nitty gritty, which usually entails finding good, offline sources that were completely unknown to the inquirer. Like it or not, the foundation to a good encyclopedia is good bibliography, and many of our stubs are more useful for telling readers where to find good sources than to read/trust directly. I say we embrace that and create better guidance for finding good, offline sources, chiefly by re-scoping WikiProject talk pages to serve as topic-specific reference noticeboards. (Note for terminology, that our noticeboards are more for discussion than announcements.) Both the tenor of the ref desks and the torpid state of WikiProjects would appear ready for this kind of shift in simple purpose. Granular, topic-specific noticeboards could provide reference guidance alongside the topic-specific editing guidance and third opinions when working in a topic area (as the best WikiProjects try to do when not primarily focused on assessment). For example, I'm more likely to provide physical refs for good, offline sources when I can watch the noticeboards specific to my areas of expertise. Like many editors, I am knowledgeable on a variety on topics, but I'm more interested in providing assistance on, say, WikiProject level granularity than in the broad categories currently delineated at the ref desk. I see the pros and cons of the "general reference desk" idea (that it could bring people into the project and that there are better forums for general questions—to which I'd add that as a former Quora admin, I really miss the library reference desk of yore...) and by all means, talk it out, but like Portals, I leave it to the editors with stronger opinions. But I do think we should have a stronger focus on expert bibliographic research as a community, and that the best solution would be to create reference noticeboards that consolidate the purpose of WikiProject talk pages and the ref desk. czar  03:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The reference desks are not only about getting answers but also about asking questions. One of the skills honed at the reference desks is the ability to formulate a question in such a way that it is likely to get a good quality response. In general the reference desks are an opportunity for all to hone verbal skills. And it is not as if we know how to speak therefore there is nothing left to learn. I think it is the use of language that may be one of the more important aspects of the reference desks. I think the Humanities reference desk is especially important in this regard. And this is not unrelated to the total purpose of the encyclopedia. Bus stop (talk) 03:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose, as Ref Desks attract experts. What I've noticed, working at the Reference Desks over the past several years, is that subject-matter experts can be attracted to help answer and explain issues, which can lead to expanding related articles, even while those experts could be annoyed by writing articles, at the time. A common problem in an ageing bureaucracy is the workload of "administrivia" handling numerous trivial details, which can distract from major expansion of topics or drive away experts who tire of excessive form-over-substance debates. Instead, the Reference Desks provide a venue to allow experts (or knowledge workers) to quickly focus on major, complex or detailed topics, without the delays of tedious formatting to fit current WP policies and page guidelines. Oppose closing Desks. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Although they attract a few trolls, the Reference Desks serve a valid function as a question-and-answer area for newcomers. Carrite (talk) 10:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong support as outside the scope of an encyclopedia. This should be a separate project entirely, perhaps associated with Wikipedia, but clearly separated. ElKevbo (talk) 15:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very Strongly Oppose  I can't for the life of me see why you want to close down the most obvious way for someone to ask an question and get an answer on Wikipedia. If people think some editors need reining in, then what is needed is more effective moderation and policing - not complete removal. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. I've been a Wikipedian for 11 years, very active at first but these days I'm only active at WP:RD/Ma. Among other things, I was active in Help desk (I hope you guys aren't discussing closing that...). Occasionally someone would ask a general knowledge question not related to using Wikipedia, and it was extremely useful to be able to tell these people "WP:HD is not the place for such questions, but please check out WP:RD". I imagine this is still the case. Shutting down WP:RD will just lead to a greater number of questions that end up where they don't belong. Regardless, the RD are a great place for people who want to ask questions and get insights from experts, specifically those who by and large are those who edit Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is still neither complete nor perfect, and these questions often help to find things which can be improved in Wikipedia. I see absolutely no reason to shut such a valuable resource down - I don't know what are the "bickering" and "BLP violations" that were mentioned, perhaps these are a problem in a specific RD but in RD/Ma people just ask questions and get quality answers. I imagine that if the RD were to shut down, very soon people will start asking for something like it to be created. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose The reference desks should remain open as their purpose is to help people use the encyclopedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , the problem is that there is scant evidence that they actually serve that purpose. --JBL (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The ref desks enrich Wikipedia with question-based content which can help explain differences between articled topics. I find the fact there is a discussion on closing them very much absurd. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose but block Baseball Bugs and StuRat. Problem solved. That has always been the solution, for years, but no one cares. Medeis at least provides useful answers sometimes. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the section on the Humanities desk called "opera Cinderella" proves that point. Bus stop (talk) 03:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would happily change my vote from "burn it all down" to "block StuRat" as a compromise position. --JBL (talk) 05:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a separate discussion for a separate venue, in my opinion, but I'd have no hesitation in supporting a block for Stu, as by and far the RefDesk's single biggest problem. Literal scores of contributors have engaged patiently with Stu for years on end, asking him to restrain his obsessive-compulsive need to have something to say on virtually any thread that appears on the desk, even if it means (as in a majority of cases) going off on half-cocked, wild speculation that is never sourced and often leads to nonsense assertions that confuse rather than elucidate.  He's clearly convinced himself that for the purposes of the reference desk, there's nothing that is beyond his ability to inform upon and has steadfastly refused to engage with the many editors who have pointed out how much trouble his behaviour can cause for the desks, many of whom have plead with him at length to moderate himself.  I passed the point of patience with this insane Dunning-Kruger routine years ago and I'm frankly at a loss to explain why none of us have ever taken the matter to ANI.  Maybe it's the fact that we'll have to rely on a general WP:disruptive rationale, rather than a specific kind of blockable behaviour.  Or maybe it's the fact that, even as he cheerily refuses to listen to anyone, Stu generally avoids firing back at anyone and thus comes off as pretty civil, despite ignoring everyone.  But enough is enough; non-caustic or not, he does disrupt the legitimate operation of the desks like no one else.  S n o w  let's rap 01:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been attempted in the past - that one is from last year, although there are other complaints going back to 2006. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of my correct and useful Ref Desk answers: Science,Math,Computers and Electronics,Miscellaneous,Humanities,Language,Entertainment. This is only a small portion, as I felt it necessary to be able to refute charges that I never make any useful contributions (charges which I attribute to the volume of contributions I make, just as a person who drives more often will get more tickets, even if they are a good driver).  Meanwhile, this thread, originally just a topic ban proposal for Medeis, growing to blocking multiple people and possibly shutting down the Ref Desk entirely, is the type of thing I was talking about earlier, where everyone is afraid to ask Admins for help because they so often take this "kill them all and let God sort them out" approach. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are so many complaints about you that you actually made a list of the very few times that you maybe didn't completely embarrass yourself and the Reference Desk? This actually makes it even worse. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You apparently didn't read what I wrote above. The number of complaints is high because my number of contributions is high, just like the number of tickets is higher on somebody who drives more.  My number of accolades (barnstars, thanks, etc.) is also high, but you don't consider those.  I've only been blocked once, over 10 years ago, and that was a mistake (I was given a 3RR warning, then somebody else reverted, and they mistakenly blocked me).  For somebody with my level of contributions, that's an amazing record. StuRat (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking correct answers is useful in winning an argument, but says nothing about the sheer volume of incorrect answers you provide on the RefDesk. Every time you provide an incorrect answer on the RefDesk you 1) spread misinformation and 2) leave a mess for other contributors to clean up.  Please take the time and effort to ensure that your answers are correct, even if it means reducing the volume of answers you provide.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do try not to post incorrect answers, but there are times when it's good to list possibilities, so that they may be investigated further, as you did here: . Some of those possibilities will, of course, turn out to be wrong.  Then of course, somebody will always say that any answer is wrong: "The shape of the Earth is round", "No, your wrong, it's a sphere.", "No, your wrong, it's a oblate spheroid", "No, your wrong, it has an irregular shape", "No, your wrong, it's a close approximation of an oblate spheroid".  None of those answers is actually wrong, but some are better than others, with the last one being my choice.  And cherry-picking is exactly what people do when they attack others, so this is also needed to defend one's self. StuRat (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * StuRat, what they're saying has some point. Not enough of a point that I'd vote to get you banned, because I don't think your nuisance level of half-cocked answering is something I need or want to invite admins into our walled garden over.  But it's enough that I wish you'd pay attention to what people are saying.  And, push come to shove, it's enough that I'd throw you under the bus if it were necessary to save the Refdesk from a broader peasants-with-pitchforks crusade.  Still, my feeling is that throwing you to the wolves would merely whet their appetite for more, so don't expect any ban votes from me shortly - but don't take that as an endorsement. Wnt (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * StuRat's analogy with someone who drives a lot is just as inane as his RD answers. StuRat is a driver who drives the wrong way down a one-way street, on the sidewalk, hitting parking meters and mailboxes and garbage cans, and there are fruit stands and bananas and watermelons go flying all over the place, and he drives through a pile of empty cardboard boxes, then he knocks over a fire hydrant and water sprays everywhere, but he's actually driving so slowly that pedestrians can get out of the way and everyone just watches him go by because it's more confusing than dangerous, and eventually he makes it back on the road travelling in the right direction and he's super proud of himself because he's totally obeying the rules of the road now, but only for a few minutes until he starts driving backwards down a dead-end alley and crashes into a fence. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * if you want to take another swing at AN (it's been a year) let me know, I'd be happy to add my 2 cents for blocking/banning. --JBL (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose does the reference desk help in building the encyclopedia? Often questions in the reference desk reflect a weakness in our articles. Either the navigational structure is not up to the job of directing users to the best article or the articles themselves are missing information. There have been a good number of times when answering questions have led me to edit related articles. Also if we do get rid of the reference desk we will just shift the questions elsewhere. You often see on article talk pages questions relating to the topic, now we redirect the question to the reference desk. Where would such questions go? --Salix alba (talk): 10:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, as I support closing any and all of our sideshows that don't directly and clearly advance our core mission of building an encyclopedia. The only positive to the reference desk is that since it's our official troll playpen, it arguably distracts trolls from the encyclopedia proper.  That said, that's an unproved hypothetical benefit and it's pretty clear closing down our very own skid row would only do us good.  I also take note of ApLundell's observation that the reference desk is already dying after years of decline, so officially getting rid of it at this point may be an act of mercy. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose try applying the same arguments to articles. Wumbolo (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which arguments are those? The ones that say the RD is outside our core mission?  That it's a side show?  That it's more bother than it's worth? That it has nothing to do with building an encyclopedia?  Just what arguments are you referring to? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's one vote that should be struck here, for starters, . It's about as useful as the nonsense answers that are given on the ref desk. Articles are the core of the encyclopedia. The ref desk is a sideshow at best and low quality comic relief at its worst. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The corresponding proposal for the articles would be to remove their talk pages, which serve a similar function, and can have similar problems. That is, they are supposed to be where people can ask questions about that particular article, identify deficiencies, and plan to address them.  However, arguments can erupt, and trolls can post there.  But this doesn't justify tossing them out.  The Ref Desks are similar, but also serve the function of helping editors who haven't been able to find the relevant article(s), whether they are absent or just not easily found. StuRat (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose even though if it does deviate from some Wikipedia polciies at a greater frequency than other pages, this might be due to the high freuency of interaction between users compared to other pages and discussions there sometimes result in correction to pages brought up in discussion. 23:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)178.170.142.48 (talk)
 * Oppose this proposal in its current form. The Reference Desks are not what they once were, and there are certainly deficiencies which could and should be improved, but to suggest that they be shut down because they "seem to be a walled garden", or because there's some "bickering", or because of one editor's bizarre and unsupported allegation that "BLP violations are actively produced and defended", would be quite a travesty. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose; shutting down the Reference Desks would basically amount to throwing out the babies with the bathwater. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty &#124; Averted crashes 02:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , when we've finished whooping and pulling the plug up and letting the water out, what babies do you expect to find? Examples please instead of an empty vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support After a perusal, it's like the Wikipedia is hosting its own version of Yahoo! Answers. Self-appointed "experts" squabbling over who is right and wrong while answering the most inane of questions. "When and Why did the board game Connect Four change to yellow discs?", "What's the highest speed limit at a traffic light in the world?" ? Geez.  TheValeyard (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we never ask any type of questions then? -- Menti  fisto  16:29, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. The reference desk is blatantly outside our mission to write and maintain an encyclopaedia, and seems to exist purely because a horde of regulars just like it. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Long overdue tbh, I will admit I've never posted at the Ref Desks however looking at them even now most of the questions are more or less unrelated to this website, If I wanted to find info on something .... I would Google it, RD is nothing more than a troll playpen and like Ritchie and Dennis I only ever hear negative stuff about them, They may of served a purpose in 2005 but they clearly don't now, If you want information on something ... Google it. – Davey 2010 Talk 13:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - If we're being honest with ourselves, the ref desks are already dead, killed off by superior competing sites like Stack Exchange. And the ref desks aren't going to come back to life, because it'd only be possible to solve the ref desks' problems with new software that's designed to work well for handling Q&A, not just with tweaked policies and procedures. As someone who used to be very active on the Science ref desk, I'd like to see the ref desks be given a proper burial, instead of just pretending that the stench coming off of the ref desks' decaying corpse is just a bad case of body odor. Red Act (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What many people seem to be missing is that the Reference Desks are very much tied to the mission of the encyclopedia.  Many questions can be answered by helping an individual who is asking a question to find the relevant Wikipedia article that has the answers.  Many questions lead to improvements to articles related to the question asked.  Many questions indicate that our articles are confusing to readers in some way, and this gives us indication where clarifications are needed.  Throwing all this away because of some editors that have recently been disruptive is a short sighted and simple minded suggestion.  Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , Have you actually looked? Like I did? Most of it is a slideshow of nonsense. The questions are mostly totally unrelated to encyclopedia building, and many editors treat it as their personal blog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I think SnowRise above speaks well on both the value of the desks and the problems that do exist there (and indeed in many other parts of the Wikipedia). Slideshow Rob above also makes well the point that the desks have an important role to play in improving the Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ref desks contribute to the goals of Wikipedia. They are not perfect, but closing them is not the answer. Baby/bath water in short. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the many baby/bathwater arguments above. Optimist on the run (talk) 09:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll ask again: What babies? Or do we mean the regulars there who act like children? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Kudpung it's an English idiom: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "babies" is the useful service it provides; "the bathwater" is the minor disruption that occurs there, that triggered this RfC. Many editors use and contribute to the ref desk, making it seem to be a valuable asset from their point of view. If you think everyone there "acts as children" you're providing a very inaccurate portrait indeed, at least from my experiences. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , quite right, quite right: the water and the babies, as as says: . And that's why it's also a good idea when commenting, to read  the whole RfC comments first - and perhaps also not assume that we are  all non native speakers (although Wikipedia seems to be getting that way). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was clarifying why I thought the idiom was appropriate. And I really think descriptions such as official troll playpen are hyperbolic and unhelpful, and do not represent my experiences there in the slightest. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 16:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , like the hyperbolic and unhelpful extraneous interjections in the answers there by, for example,  and ?  I'm not saying that all the efforts are not serious, but I am saying that the vast majority of the questions have nothing to do with our encyclopedia, and that a great many of the answers are inappropriate, which together make the RD a net negative. If you would take a moment as I suggested, and read this entire RfC, you'll easily see that the Supporters are not wrong, and that nany of them are indeed thinking of viable alternatives.  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The cliché baby/bathwater arguments above do not address the fact that the ref desks are a bit out of date, and there are dedicated websites like Quora that can offer the same service but with a better focus, because that's the main purpose of their website, a Q&A place. The argument is more or less "they should be kept because closing it down is an over-reaction"; it ignores that it is not our purpose to be a Q&A site -- better sites have superseded us. <sup style="color:#093">My name is <small style="color:#4000FF">not <sup style="color:#093">dave (talk/contribs) 10:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In what way is Quora providing the "same service with a better focus"? You say this is "because that's the main purpose of their website". In my opinion there is nothing special about Quora. Why would I want certain responses hidden from me? Because by popular opinion or as per the opinions of Quora's moderators those responses are of lesser importance? I would say our focus is preferable. Our website has no commercial interests. Quora is a zoo. It is meant to be entertaining. Its raison d'être is driving traffic to advertisers. Its intellectual honesty is compromised and it entertains a proliferation of silly and poorly formed questions that on a good day would be removed from our desks. Bus stop (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support: Wikipedia is an encylopedia and a project towards creating and improving that encylopedia. The reference desk is neither encyclopaedic content, nor helpful towards the rest of the project. As mentioned above, various other sites do this better, and maintaining such a forum is outside of Wikipedia's scope. --LukeSurlt c 14:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You say "various other sites do this better". How? In what way? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: If you don't like the way the RefDesk operates, feel free to not use it. It's useful to me. Justin15w (talk) 14:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, given that it is currently in use and is obviously considered useful by quite a few people. Jc86035 (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Not part of an encyclopedia and therefore out of project scope. A reference desk is found in libraries. We are an encyclopedia, not a library.  Sandstein   15:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If we close things because some people act like an ass on them, we may as well close the whole project. If people are misbehaving, first counsel and warn them, and if that doesn't work, sanction them. There's a reason we have available sanctions like topic bans; those could be applied to Reference Desk participation as easily as anything else. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present. The RDs are a toxic mess, but this is largely the result of a single obsessively active and irredeemably disruptive editor systematically poisoning the well. Before making wholesale changes, I'd prefer to topic ban StuRat (or siteban for that matter; lord knows we've indeffed editors for considerably less long-term abuse) and see if that resolves the issues; I suspect that it will. &#8209; Iridescent 18:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose: There has been a history of unfortunate problems with user behaviour, but I do think there is something of value in the Refdesks. I don't agree with the argument that if the reference desk were to close, suddenly the people who contribute to it would start cranking out article improvements instead. (Perhaps if the Refdesk regulars wished to show the value contributed to mainspace, they should perhaps maintain a list of article improvements that have been made following questions to the Refdesk. I'd be interested in seeing such a list.) —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The ref desk serves a useful purpose that isn't served by either the main articles or the article talk pages. I've often asked and had questions answered there, sometimes enabling me to resolve problems with main articles that were not being answered in the relevant talk page.  I've also answered questions there, (usually) providing links to Wikipedia and other articles with the appropriate information.   Wikipedia:NOTFORUM doesn't apply here - or rather it does.  It is specifically mainspace and talk pages that are not to be used for asking general questions, and the refdesk is specifically stated as where to go if you want to do that.  Verifiability and No original research both specifically apply to main articles (not talk pages or ref desk).  Therefore the refdesk per se does not violate any policy I know of, and because it has different rules to the talk pages, it fills a role that they don't.  I'd also note that the refdesk is described as being "like" a library reference desk - not "functions identically to" (and just as Wikipedia isn't expected or required to be run exactly like a paper encyclopedia, I don't see why a virtual ref desk should be run exactly like a physical one).  That's not to say there aren't problems, but I don't think they're inherent to the concept of a ref desk, nor are they serious to warrant closure.  (I think most problems could be solved by better enforcement of the "no personal attacks" rule - both regarding arguments between regulars, and "why didn't you just google it" put-downs of people asking "obvious" questions). Iapetus (talk) 10:15, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well stated. I agree completely. StuRat (talk) 03:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I have asked what I hope were intelligent questions and received informed, helpful answers (as well as ho-hum answers that I politely ignored). I have seen intelligent questions and given what I hope were informed, helpful answers. I've also seen a lot of time-wasting silliness there but haven't had much trouble ignoring it. Some tweaking of the relevant guidelines would probably help, as would encouragement to ignore users who are rather clearly using one or more of the refdesks as an alternative either to expending mental effort at school or to socializing via Facebook or similar. -- Hoary (talk) 09:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Personally, I find the Reference Desk to informative and useful. In fact, I created my account in order to participate on the Reference Desk.  Just because a handful of editors can't get a long is no reason to close such.  This is basically throwing the baby out with the bath water.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support. To be clear, I don't recall ever actually using the refdesk.  (I did use the help desk once, I think, and I've helped out at the Teahouse.)  It's clear from the numerous !votes that many think that there is an issue with the refdesk going against Wikipedia's core policies, and that's a problem.  The flipside is that there are many !votes that believe the refdesk is helpful, despite the problems it has.  The problem I see with simply saying we should reform the refdesk is that, in my experience, there are many times people will agree that something is a good idea and to move forward with it, and then nothing comes of it.  However, despite that, I'm willing to conditionally support closing the refdesk provided there is an adequate replacement that does abide by Wikipedia's rules and guidelines ready to go soon after the refdesk's closure.  This would sort of be a clean start in a way.  —   Gestrid  ( talk ) 14:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If you've never used it, give it a try. If you don't like it, turn the page.DOR (HK) (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support, but replace - research assistance is not the function of an encyclopedia (try calling Britannica and see how much help you'll get), but rather the function of a library. Being a library was never in Jimbo's original remit for our goals and purposes. That being said, assisting editors editing articles here is a very valid use. Perhaps the reference desks could be repurposed away from a forum format to a form-submission model. If you need help researching a subject for a specific edit on a specific article, you could submit a form on which you include the name of the article to a mailing list, and you'd receive a response on your talk page. This would address the problem behavior by both the askers and the answerers, and restrict the use of the reference department to only the purpose of improving the encyclopedia. If a question is not within the bounds if improving the encyclopedia, just pass on it. If someone else thinks it is, they can answer it. If no one answers a message in predetermined timeframe, it could be deleted and a neutral message could be generated to the asker automatically. John from Idegon (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because something "was never in Jimbo's original remit" doesn't mean that we can't recognize a good development. You say "[t]his would address the problem behavior by both the askers and the answerers, and restrict the use of the reference department to only the purpose of improving the encyclopedia." In my opinion there is virtually no problem with the answerers. How to field prank inquiries is a problem but I think we can find ways to address dubious inquiries. An encyclopedia is expected to do its part to banish ignorance. I think that all those fielding questions on the Reference desks are onboard with that purpose. Bus stop (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * John, your proposal is an interesting one, but responding to your initial assertion that the research assistance is not a part of the original remit of wikipedia: This isn't like any other encyclopedia in the world.  It's scope dwarfs that of any other similar undertaking, and it's articles are a constant work in progress, with a massive span in realized quality and depth, and information on related matters sometimes scattered over a large number of articles.  A user assistance process, in the form of the help desks and reference desks, is very valuable to our readers trying to piece together information in imperfect articles, sometimes imperfectly associated with one-another.  But even more to the point, the question askers are not even necessarily the focus of the value the desks bring to the project; in helping them, we discover flaws in existing articles, get inspired to fill gaps in content or improve referencing, and serve a bevy of other little Wiki-gnome-like chores--we can outpace the amount of traffic most WikiProjects get in a month if we only counted the species identification/referencing we provide for photos on commons or Wikipedia's file store.  And we certainly allow WikiProjects (and many, many other process spaces that discuss content separate from individual talk page discussions) to operate on a utilitarian rationale, even though they are not a part of the Encyclopedia proper.


 * Your proposal above is an example of a change to format that might be worth discussing, but like some other proposals above, it would need substantial technical expertise to make happen, so it's speculative in my mind until someone steps forward to volunteer to implement whatever outline the community settles on. In the meantime, there are probably much simpler changes that can maximize the gain of the desks while minimizing the inappropriate. I think maybe all we really need is a stricter  referencing  standard and one level-headed admin willing to contemplate the occasional block for those who can't understand the need.  Even after all of these years it boggles my mind that people don't make the connection between what they are being urged to do with regard to sourcing, and the name of the space.  Now sometimes you make judgement call on what does or does not need validating, but the impulse should be to err on the side of caution, and never make a wild guess or any statement you couldn't provide a directly relevant source to verify (ideally at RS standard), if someone asked for it.   That's all that really needs to happen here: we need to get down to basics and we need a mop or two on deck for at least the very occasional warning, and enforcement if it comes to that.  S n o w  let's rap 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -on more than one occasion, I've been on the reference desks and seen a question that both interests me and that I didn't know about. When it has been answered, I've not only learnt something new, but also been inspired to go and look at articles in Wikipedia that I may not even have thought about before, and if the reference desk can act as a stepping stone to introduce people to Wikipedia then surely that's a good thing Lemon martini (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Support. I no longer contribute to the Reference Desks, so my opinion may not be particularly valuable, but the problem is clearly articulated above - the desks do not work in the way they should, and, critically, any attempt to do anything about it always ends in failure.  Indeed, I suspect this attempt is going to end the same way, with the status quo intact, and those editors responsible for the status quo being as dysfunctional as it is taking this RFC as an endorsement of their behaviour.  We aren't prepared to apply any sanctions against the individuals responsible for the situation; if shutting the desks down is the only way forward, then that's what we need to consider.  If the bathwater is raising a toxic miasma that corrupts other areas of the project, we should throw it out: the baby drowned long ago.  Tevildo (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support. I'm in favour of shifting them to a separate WMF project, per SMcCandlish, Robert McClenon, Kudpung. I'm sure that a new project hosting the reference desks would still keep the benefits of things such as helping people discover topics that could use expanding on and finding articles to improve. It's too difficult to reform effectively (enforcing of rules is nigh impossible, some regulars will always end up unhappy) and when drama does pop up (involving regulars, or involving people asking inflammatory questions that need to be hidden from the revision history etc) it takes up valuable admin time, which does in fact harm the encyclopedia. Yet to see an Oppose argument that addresses the idea of a separate but related WMF project. The baby's cold and on the verge of becoming ill, the bathwater's long stagnant, the oils in the water solidifying; we can't allow the status quo to continue, and perhaps the best way to deal with it is to take the baby out and give it some fresh clothes. Alcherin (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongest oppose in the history of the known universe, even stronger than User:Snow Rise's oppose which is so mind-bendingly strong that it is hard to even measure - The refdesk has helped me countless times in ways that has lead to improvement of articles. Examples include: . The refdesk is a fantastic resource! So, keep this refdesk or there will be consequences!!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support the best way to fix the reference desk is to burn it down and replace it. f eminist 12:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think the reference desk is useful, but it could be improved if the answers would focus on providing sources. Benjamin (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose I have found this a useful resource at times, but I acknowledge that you are likely to get a lot of smart-arse non-serious comments as well as answers - Q Chris (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Break 3 (survey)

 * Support per others that note the violations of an alphabet soup of policy. People can use https://answers.yahoo.com/ for this stuff or other sites that have a vote up or down function for the answers given. Users are pretty good at weeding out the good answers from the poor ones on sites build for crowdsourcing answers - Wikipedia is not designed very well for Q & A. Legacypac (talk) 17:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The Ref Desk performance and usefulness should be judged by the feedback of the people who ask questions there. The Ref Desk may not be consistent with the way the rest of Wikipedia works, but as long as it doesn't cause problems it should be tolerated. The Ref Desks are the brains of Wikipedia, the most intelligent editors hang out there. To get rid of the Ref Deks just because it works in a different way from the rest of Wikipedia is like humanity deciding to bioengineer their brains back to more normal proportions and become chimp like creatures again. Count Iblis (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of Wikipedia's users at the REf Desk are most certainly not the most intelligent editors. Your comment is not consistent with the reality there - or you are only looking at one of the less problematic desks. I've voted to close it, because I've seen what goes on there, but as I'm here to build and maintain an encyclopedia and not sustain some peripheral Internet help forum, I don't really care either way. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Obviously regarding other Q&A websites other stuff exists, but that is NOT directly relevant to the operations and goals of this website. Regarding the claims of the Ref Desk not being at all relevant or within the scope of building this encyclopedia: I would say that abandoning or even reforming it is contrary to our editorial prerogatives regarding building the best reference resource ever here. Obviously not every query, answer or edit contributes to article creation and improvement, but our collective edits certainly do (as many of the contributors here have attested to) and this next point is crucial: all these edits and discussions are all volunteered WITHOUT stifling central control over editorial process which includes queries involving actual and potential encyclopedic material that anyone might be considering, searching for, or learning about (I recommend reviewing the origins of Wikipedia and the failings of other online sites that lacked or ran contrary to supporting extensive collaboration). In other words, I view these desks as serving Wikipedia's essential goal of having an open and inclusive editorial process. --Modocc (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support; some of the arguments given above (on both sides) are not especially compelling: The Desk may not be directly related to the purpose of the project, but then neither are many things which have been and are allowed (Esperanza, barnstars, even DYK, to name three), so i find that argument less convincing; the civility/trolling/unintelligent behaviours at the Desk is not, per se a reason to remove it, as they can and should be resolved by the community with procedures in place; the fact that the Ref Desk doesn't behave just as a library reference desk does is more of a sign that the metaphor is flawed than a reason to remove it; that it provides a place to find new subjects to write on or articles to develop is useful, but no more so than pressing the random button.  On balance, though the Desk is useful, it is sufficiently tangential to the purpose and source of enough disruption to the community that it should change; my first choice would be Reform but it is fairly clear through the arguments and struggles of the community over change (RfA, anyone?) that that will not happen; hence, i support abolishing the Ref Desk. Happy days, LindsayHello 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support mainly per the argument that there are better sites than Wikipedia for true questions; which means that inevitably all the dross ends up at the reference desks here, which causes issues (e.g. the ANI on StuRat right now). jcc (tea and biscuits) 20:17, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There's an important point here that I really should put as a separate first-level item, but this will do for now.  Besides the upvote/downvote and the TOS, both of which I personally find obnoxious, the problem with Quora et al is that they are not coupled to our project. Right now, if someone goes on the talk page of a technical article and asks a technical question about the subject matter, I can explain that per WP:TALK we are not allowed to discuss it in that venue, but I can invite him/her to pose a question on the refdesk, where we are allowed to discuss it.  Sometimes I get an annoyed reaction (because they thought it was an error in the article, which it wasn't), but sometimes it does actually work.  I can't say "why don't you ask on Quora?"; that's just not the same thing at all. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. This isn't what Wikipedia is for. I don't think that it's fixable, and I agree that it's a walled garden. I understand that at one point it may have been nice to point people somewhere when they asked questions on talk pages, but I don't see that so much anymore. I think that a better answer is "that's not what Wikipedia is for." agt x  22:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, that just removes part of Wikipedia's functionality, without any obvious gain. Wikipedia is more valuable because we can explain things on the refdesk.  If that were removed, Wikipedia would instantly be worse. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand you see the refdesk a feature. I see it more as a bug. It's not part of the intended functionality of this site, and like other things that used to seem harmless or even benefecial (RIP WP:BJAODN), it's time to fix the bug. agt x  05:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, but you haven't made any case why it's a bug. I have made a case why it's beneficial.  Assuming for the sake of argument that it wasn't part of the original intent &mdash; so what?  It makes Wikipedia better.  If a rule gets in the way of making Wikipedia better, ignore the rule.   --Trovatore (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Keep the Ref desks, but place semi-protection on them. Furthermore, ban all deemed troublesome editors. We don't need to tear down the apartments, just evict the troublemakers. GoodDay (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The way I see it, there are a few points on the side of removing the Reference desk, or relocating.
 * 1 - the reference desk is not part of an encyclopaedia. The way I see it is a combination between the views expressed by User:Edison and User:Snow Rise. Edison brought up the point that Encyclopaedia Britannica's physical encyclopaedias incorporated a method where you send in forms to the staff, and they send back the answers. That sounds very similar to the reference desk of Wikipedia. Also building on what Snow said, Wikipedia has such a broad expanse, that it is necessary for there to be a system for users to find answers to their questions, as information can be spread across a huge assortment of articles.
 * A point very similar to this is 2 - libraries have reference desks, not encyclopaedias. Yes, they do, but our reference desk isn't exactly the same as a library reference desk, as librarians do not answer the question, instead they just redirect to sources, although in some instances when we have an article on the topic a basic answer on the reference desk is see this article.
 * 3 - Quora and Stack Exchange do it better. I've used both, and they're a nightmare. Not only has a question I asked on Quora months ago not been answered, but for a while before I unsubscribed I was receiving junk mail every day. I've spent more time on Quora, and from what I've seen there, if you ask a question, you better hope you'll land an expert because otherwise you get completely unsourced answers which don't help anyone and are hugely speculative. On top of this, jargon answers can get buried in cases where a simpler answer which doesn't fully explain the question gets bumped.
 * 4 - the Reference desk is a trollfest where questions aren't helpful. An example of a user bringing this up is User:TheValeyard, who brings up two sample questions they perceive to be useless, with one of them being: "When and Why did the board game Connect Four change to yellow discs?" Not only would an answer for this help out on our article for Connect Four, but answers to find this more technical historical question can help dig up good sources for future article expansion. I agree that there are a lot of menial questions on the desk, and I myself have contributed to this issue in asking questions to answers I couldn't find anywhere else, but this culture of a trollfest seems to be made up entirely of several users who feel obliged to comment on every post. Even if this was a trollfest, with a bit of admin help the reference desk could eliminate this completely, and quickly at that.
 * 5 - the reference desk doesn't adhere to our policies. This, I admit is a problem, but primarily one perpetrated by users who don't source their answers, who should be removed from the desk.
 * Other than some minor issues, the reference desk brings great help to users who expand articles brought to their attention by it. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Let me take point 3 and use the right of parody to demonstrate how just because a site doesn't work for you, doesn't mean it doesn't work generally .... "Wikipedia does it better. I've used it and it's a nightmare. Not only has an article I wrote on Wikipedia been deleted, but for a while before I quit I was receiving angry notices on my talk page every day about proposed deletion, canvassing and a conflict of interest. I've spent more time on Wikipedia, and from what I've seen there, if you write something, you better hope you're in a very niche interest because otherwise you get completely reverted by basket cases who don't help anyone and are hugely disruptive. On top of this, comprehensive and helpful questions can get buried in cases where a simpler answer like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:COI, which doesn't fully explain the question gets attention. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- the reference desks are very useful for questions which are not answered within the articles, and as for the problems listed by the OP, these are an inevitable consequence of Wikipedia's freely editable nature and global reach. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:65AB:303D:F2EB:232 (talk) 06:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- The many calls for admin intervention distract us from our mission, which is to build and maintain the encyclopedia. To focus on the one thing we are, we must add the RD to our list of what we are NOT. Jonathunder (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Many good reasons have already been given. What started as a useful tool has drifted from its purpose and become a mishmash of something like Yahoo answers and just plain non constructive editing. The utility of the desk has plummeted and it is more like an old fashioned BBS than a part of an encyclopedia. Effort wasted there would be better spent in article space. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support and Comment Initially, I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion because, like so many others, I wasn't even aware we had a Reference Desk until the discussion came up. (An indictment in itself.) Having explored it, I'm shocked.  I would have expected any RefDesk to be like the Enquiry counter in any good library. If I go in and asked stupid questions about, say, the colour and flammability of  belly-button fluff and how many Joules of energy are released when I ignite it, I'd expect to be politely but firmly turned away. If I return and repeat silly questions, I'd expect to be kicked out and told not to come back. If I ask a sensible questions about content in the library, and the enquiry staff (or the janitor!) pops up with total guesses and utter nonsense, or spends ages wasting library resources trying to answer my daft questions, I'd expect managers to deal with the staff concerned, warning them not to bring the library service into disrepute. The WP:TEAHOUSE and the Reference Desk really ought to operate in parallel with one another (and on the same basis). One should answer practical questions about editing Wikipedia; the other should point towards Wikipedia articles as the starting point or jumping off point for users to go find answers to questions. I would expect every single Ref Desk answer to include a link to at least one Wikipedia article (even at times inviting enquirers to add missing information and sources to the article). I'd expect all other questions to be politely but firmly turned away as being outside the scope of the Reference Desk. I expect competency from my library Enquiry desk, and to be pointed towards reference material when I'm stuck.  Were I to desire to contribute at Wikipedia's Reference Desk, I might expect either to be invited to help there (based on the quality of Wikipedia articles I have contributed to) or to submit a request for a user right (a la WP:NPP or WP:RfA) and I'd expect to have my competency judged by others, and be subject to review if I were to lose my grip. Any other way of working just seems to be bringing the project into disrepute. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose 100% against closing the Ref desks. This is an invaluable resource for readers of this encyclopedia. I hear people mentioning Yahoo answers but frankly you would never get the quality of responses that are found here on the wikipedia reference desks anywhere else and the desks offer a unique way for readers to learn and navigate this encyclopedia and access its knowledge. Polyamorph (talk) 11:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose I entirely agree with Nick Moyes (talk)'s comments above. I believe that the RD is an underused resource with terrific potential for improvement. I see WP and the RD's as being closely linked. If we can improve the quality of the RD dramatically it would improve the core project. More high quality potential members would be attracted, more respect would be shown to WP by outside academic institutions..a virtuous circle would be created. This would be a long term goal, but it is achievable. To get there we need to take serious steps as a community. I myself would advocate that RD volunteers be given a specific user right - it could be at least 45% of activity on WP devoted to mainspace, demonstrable knowledge of deployment of relevant sources, which could be proven in such areas as article rescue or GA involvement, at least 6 months tenure, and maybe 2k edits. These requireements could be refined by the community. Trolling questions should be dealt with quickly and firmly by hatting. The RD should also be firmly policed by those members of the admin community who believe in the potential of the RD's. I would see their primary mission as filtering the legitimacy of questions put. Lets just improve what we have. Most people come to WP articles as their first stop when researching a subject now, which is a remarkable achievement for the project. Why should WP's Ref Desks not also be the place of choice for people wanting questions answered professionally and accurately? Irondome (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is an invaluable place to find subject-matter experts who can help find citations or provide insight that can help add facts to articles. Maybe fewer people are using them because Wikipedia has grown so much it's relatively easy to find the answers you're looking for, or maybe other web cites are filling this role more.  But either way, I don't think they've nearly outlived their usefulness. -- Beland (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support- this is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't have reference desks.Smeat75 (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The Ref desks are really the only place that I've been able to find a plethora of interesting information. --TrogWoolley (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, fix the misbehaviour, don't remove the resource. Stifle (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That there are problems with the behaviour of some people who edit the reference desks is not, and should not, be a reason to close down the valuable service they provide. It is a reason to fix the problems though - the WP:Dispute resolution process exists for a reason - use it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The reference desk is often the only place where lay people and students can ask questions.Math articles are notoriously "For mathematicians and by mathematicians." The ref Desk opens to dialog as to what is confusing and where it can be improved.  I personally have answered questions with an article refence using the common name only to find that the common name was overlooked by the authors of highly technical subjects.  It helps improve the Encyclopedia and doesn't create overhead as it's not article space.  Half of the issues are created by too policing that would best be served by just letting it go.  If the ref desk bothers an editor, they simply don't need to read it.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was hasty and struck the policing argument. BLP violations are obviously necessary.  Editors shouldn't drift into their own POV politics or attacks.  Annoying editors are not the problem but BLP violating editors as Fram described problems and need to be removed the reference desk.  --DHeyward (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 16:06, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose — many of my points have already been addressed. 147.126.10.148 (talk) 08:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Meh. The reference desk ostensibly serves two purposes: 1) An outlet for people who have questions about a subject, rather than the article about it; and 2) Sometimes people find sources in response to ref desk questions, that then get incorporated into relevant articles. Honestly, I think most of the problems with the reference desk, at least most of its peculiar problems, could be solved by banning just three people. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose The reference desk is an invaluable part of what makes Wikipedia great. It allows us to interact with the readership and I often recommend it to folks who need help with research.  Not to mention I love reading them.  I understand that it is not strictly part of creating an encyclopedia, but we needn't be entirely defined by that, and this is still part of the mission of making information freely accessible to all. Zell Faze (talk) 03:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. WP:RD provides a a valuable service that is a nice innovation to the traditional library reference desk in the same relationship that Wikipedia itself is to the traditional encyclopedia.  I think it has much unfulfilled potential, that would probably benefit from dedicated software and a separate WMF project infrastructure (so it can function technically on the same level as for-profit Q&A sites), but I do not think we just should kill it.--Pharos (talk) 17:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I'm late to this discussion, but there is no inherent reason for the RD to be WP:NOT. Just don't treat it as a policy-free zone. If certain editors get in the way of doing it right, sanction them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support spinning it off as its own sister project. That would allow Wikimedia RefDesk (or whatever it ends up being called) to operate in an environment free of WP:V, WP:BLP, and WP:CV instead of blatantly flaunting them on Wikipedia. It would also allow it to adopt Structured Discussions which, despite not really being suitable for Wikipedia proper, is well suited for something like RefDesk. --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center;">TALK
 * Oppose. I've found them useful. Q.E.D. Ericoides (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose in favour for some kind of restructuring and/or reform. Since StuRat is topic banned from there, the situation might also improve. Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Many sockpuppets like VXFC use the reference desks for abuse Japanesealphabet (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because I'm not really sure why it's an issue. It occasionally provides useful information, who cares?  Programming Geek talk to me 20:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Many people make questions, and many people give answers. Why on earth shuld be stop that? --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: Should the Reference Desks be closed?
The ref desk has long been a source of bickering between regulars, and more and more seems to be a walled garden, separate from the encyclopedia, and with some people who feel that the rules of enwiki don't apply there. BLP violations are not only accepted but actively produced and defended by some of the more frequent ref desk responders, and the whole is more of a WP:NOT forum violation than anything else.

Instead of silencing one or the other side at the ref desks, or letting this fester on and on, isn't it time to simply close down the ref desks as being out of scope for enwiki and consider it a well-meaning but ultimately failed project? People who really feel it should continue can request the WMF to set up "Wikirefdesk", parallel to Wikivoyage, Wikinews, Wikisource and so on, where they can have their own rules and chat with whoever they want for as long as they want about any subject. Fram (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Alternative theory: you (Fram) have a mental concept of "BLP violation" that is wildly different from our published policies and from the consensus of the community. For example, you and Medeis / μηδείς both appear to believe that criticizing Donald Trump's public statements is a deletable BLP violation, but the Wikipedia community does not agree. Rather than attempting to get the policy changed to match your beliefs, you are simply accusing those who don't agree with your interpretation of policy when you say things like "BLP violations are not only accepted but actively produced and defended". No. It is not an established fact that criticizing Donald Trump's public statements is a deletable BLP violation. You think it is but it isn't. You are correct when you say "some people who feel that the rules of enwiki don't apply there" but the rule that is being ignored is not WP:BLP. It is WP:TPOC. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "criticizing Donald Trump's public statements" is not the purpose of enwiki, not even its talk pages, per WP:NOTFORUM/WP:SOAP. Furthermore, statements like "the belief that he is an idiot is about the only consolation there is", "make him look like an idiot and/or bully", "seems incapable of such self-control", "there's madness to his method" are simply BLP violations. Fram (talk) 11:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you need to both look at this objectively. Proper application of talkpage guidelines and BLP would mean 90% of the problems with the ref desk would disappear. If someone asks a question related to criticism of Donald Trump, the correct response would be to refer them to our relevant articles and/or provide any number of references that are readily available on the subject of his personal and professional failings. Provided without the usual discussion, this would also be compliant with the BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree 100%. Your solution would satisfy both WP:BLP and WO:TPOC. Right now, the de-facto rule is "I can delete anything I don't like and nobody is willing to do anything about it". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, the current situation is "if you dare to apply WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, WP:TPOC to the ref desks, you will be dragged to ANI to get a topic ban, as we don't want people to actually maintain these policies at our playground". Not having the BLP violations would be best: if the regulars can't control themselves though, deletion of such discussions is a perfectly acceptable solution. Fram (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So you won't even consider the possibility that your interpretation of "BLP violation" that is wildly different from our published policies and from the consensus of the community? No direct quotes from any policy that you believe allow Medeis / μηδείς to delete (as opposed to, say, hatting) comments criticizing Donald Trump's public statements (As you argued at Administrators' noticeboard)? Is it your intent to keep asserting that you are right without actually making an argument supporting your position? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you really want me to quote the parts of WP:BLP that allow (no, require) the removal of such comments? Not hatting, removal. I have quoted some of the most egregious statements here, these are not "criticizing his public statements", these are direct negative comments on his mental state. They may be right or not, that doesn't matter, they are the kind of comments which are simply not allowed anywhere on enwiki. You obviously disagree, but that doesn't mean that I haven't made any arguments supporting my position. Your claim that my interpretation of BLP violation is "wildly different" from the consensus of the community seems to ignore the responses you got from non-refdesk regulars at AN and here completely. That some people at the refdesk has developed their own set of rules or interpretations which are not compatible with the policies used elsewhere on enwiki is one of the main reasons so many people here are advocating shutting down the refdesk, and comments like the one you made here only reinforce that opinion. Fram (talk) 20:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Your claim that "these are not 'criticizing his public statements', these are direct negative comments on his mental state" is demonstrably not true. The question that you defended deleting was "Is Donald Trump saying outrageous things a clever tactic meant to manipulate the media into not focussing as much attention on his actual policies?" That question contains zero reference to Donald Trump's mental state. Yes, one reply called Trump an idiot, but Medeis / μηδείς didn't delete just that one comment. She deleted the entire thread. And you are defending her deletion.


 * I will assume from your response that the answer to my question is no; you won't even consider the possibility that your interpretation of "BLP violation" is wildly different from our published policies and from the consensus of the community. WP:CRYBLP.--Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Repeating the same errors won't suddenly make them true, it is just WP:BLUDGEONING, which I thought you heavily opposed? If a question only or mainly brings out BLP violations by the regulars at that ref desk, simply deleting that whole thread is perfectly justified and the best solution under our policy. Warning and if necessary blocking the culprits (not the asker of the question, but the regulars who forgot our most basic policies) is also something that should be considered in such situations. WP:SOAP and all that. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but actions like yours and threads like the one removed by Medeis are the reason so many people here are either voting support or oppose but reform / apply policies much stricter. There is very little support for your position here, so perhaps you should take that as a clue about whose position is "wildly different etc." Fram (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So your position is that a correct application of policy results in a topic ban? Interesting.  Who are you going to set above ANI participants to tell us all what is the correct application of policy? Wnt (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe that is Fram's point. If ANI is repeatedly forced to decide the lesser of two evils, why not eliminate the problem? ApLundell (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more correct to say that ANI's primary purpose is to decide the lesser of two evils. Bus stop (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Is this RFC question accurate to the intentions? The section title "Should the Reference Desks be closed?" and the subsection title "Survey: Should the Reference Desks be closed?" allow for only closing or keeping the RD but the opening statement says, [p]eople who really feel it should continue can request the WMF to set up "Wikirefdesk".... That seems like three possible outcomes and the discussion above ignores the third option almost completely.  It seems either this should be confined explicitly to keep/remove or there should be a parallel RfC for the spin-out option. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this RfC fails, the second question is moot. If it passes, the second question (and any other related questions) can be asked separately. There is little to be gained by trying to address both questions in one RfC. On the other hand, there is a lot to be lost by complicating the RfC to the point where no consensus is possible on anything. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A "WikiRefdesk" with software and rules that mimick a more modern question-answering service like Stack Exchange, would be an interesting experiment. Might be worth a try.
 * I'll bet they wouldn't be interested, though.
 * As question-answering desks go, Wikipedia has allowed itself to fall to the bottom. I don't know if the foundation will see any value in trying to climb back up that particular hill. ApLundell (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * QUESTION - is this about one ref desk in particular, some but not others, or all the various ref desks? I get the impression that people’s experience (and thus attitude towards the desks) differs depending on which desk we focus on. Blueboar (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said anything about shutting down only selected desks. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Break 1 (discussion)
It seems to me that many of the Opposers must have little experience with the day-to-day reality of the desks. They speak eloquently of how the desks should be reformed, but they don't say how to make that happen. Are they going to support topic bans for the regulars who continue to use the desks as chat forums no matter what anybody says to them? Is there going to be a new refdesk moderator function with discretionary blocking authority? That seems very unlikely, but that's what it would take. One of my earliest experiences at the desks was when I collapsed some of that chat (citing the instructions at the top of each RD page). I was reverted, I took it to Village Pump, and the takeaway was that I should let experienced editors do what they want to do and avoid offending them (and one of the comments, from an editor with some 7 years, actually said that). What will be different in the future if the desks are kept around? In the end, many editors will do what they want to do, no matter what others think, unless they are forced to stop doing it. If nothing else, our RD experience has clearly shown that. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * First, it occurs to me that the Reference Desks, as implemented, resemble Usenet, a chaotic resource with no administration, and with known trolls and flamers, that has since been superseded by more modern systems. Wikipedia doesn't need a Usenet-like system.  Those who say to keep the reference desks but to reform them would be well advised to read the history of Usenet, to see how resistant it has been to all attempts to reform it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Second, since it appears that this RFC is likely to be closed either as No Consensus or with a conclusion of Keep, but Reform, I would first like to ask those who favor "reform" how they propose reforming the Reference Desks. Second (of second), I would suggest that the only viable approach to reform within the context of the English Wikipedia is ArbCom discretionary sanctions, with administrators given draconian power to impose sanctions ranging from limited topic-bans through Reference Desk bans up through extended blocks to deal with disruptive behavior.  That is the only mechanism I know of within the context of the English Wikipedia that might work.  If you don't want ArbCom Discretionary Sanctions, either propose a totally new reform, or !vote to close down, or !vote to keep as is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Third, the discussion is about the Reference Desks in general, not any specific Reference Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Fourth, the comment is made that if the Reference Desks are deleted, troublemakers will go somewhere else. That is true.  In particular, trolls may go somewhere else in Wikipedia, and be quickly indeffed, or may go somewhere outside Wikipedia.  In either case, good riddance.  Completely clueless questioners will go to another Reference Desk.  Good riddance.  Also, some of the problems that we have at the Reference Desks are not due to troublemakers as such, but to well-meaning counter-productive editors.  However, the argument that they will go somewhere else is not a reason to keep or reform the Reference Desks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes: to the extent that the refdesk is a problem because it's a locus for bad behavior, closing it will almost certainly decrease the total amount of bad behavior. This is relevant. --JBL (talk) 01:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * That is why I suggest giving it a 'rebrand'. It is a useful area of WP for some editors, but far too often proves to be a waste-of-time. I completely support the idea of banning certain editors from the RDs. I really do not know why it has not been done already. There should also be a visible moderator presence, so the trouble causers' additions may be removed. I do think that there should be some sort of similar area, but it would need to be completely different. 'Help Centre' is a much better name, as it sounds more welcoming than 'reference desk' (which is not as formal as it likes to make out). We would probably need to close RD and re-open it as something else, otherwise it will not be obvious that it is a new entity. – Sb 2001  00:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Calling it a Help Centre would cause confusion with the Help Desk, which is necessary and useful and orderly. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How about 'Reference Centre'? – Sb 2001  01:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A huge chunk of readers believe the word is spelled "center". They're wrong, of course, but have enough evidence to raise a substantial stink. As do we. Best to use a word everyone can spell comfortably. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:16, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * What, like the Persistant Commitee for Accomodating Curiousity? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Eggsellent. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:46, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Eggseptionally eggsemplary. Eggstraordinary, even. (Somebody call the humor police!) &#8213; Mandruss &#9742;  06:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the cops show up, I'm throwing the book at them. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:45, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * These "reforms" are no more welcome than deletion. Comparing the Refdesks to Usenet is interesting, because Usenet, for all its technical limitations, has been an honest mechanism, whereas all this Web 2.0 crap is designed to let publicists control what you read with volleys of upvotes for their friends and a tyranny of instant downvotes for anything insightful.  You didn't see the Russian government manipulate an election with Usenet!  Why is that?  We don't need power freaks, we don't need bureaucratic proceedings.  We just need people to leave us to ask and answer questions as we've been doing.  There is nothing wrong here except for the destroyers and so-called reformers who want to interfere with the project. Wnt (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What has been made clear in this discussion is that editors are happy with RD as it is. That leaves only two options—reform it, or delete it. Having something is better than having nothing. That is why editors are asking for reforms. Editors avoid using the RDs, as they are not helpful. This should not be the case. People are not 'power freaks' for wanting an area designed to be helpful to  helpful. – Sb  2001  01:33, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sb2001 - What reforms are you suggesting? The only reform that I am aware of that is consistent with the way the English Wikipedia is implemented would be ArbCom discretionary sanctions.  Is that what you are suggesting, or something else?  Moderation has been suggested.  Moderation is not used in the English Wikipedia (except as a means for facilitated discussions).  How would the moderators be chosen?  What reforms are you suggesting?  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that editors should be topic banned for non-constrictive contributions to discussions. We should not have a situation where a few people have the ability to run riot at an area of WP, just because they have been here for a long time. The RDs should not be considered their play area. Choosing moderators could either be by nomination and approval—similar to RfA—or administrators could gain the right by default. This is only really to stop the disruptive behaviour. As I set out earlier, I would like to see threads remain open for longer before they are marked as 'resolved'. Often is is the case that one (or, if one is lucky, two) editor provides a response to queries. This does not allow an issue to be explored fully, and could result in WP's content being swayed by the thoughts of one person. Having discussions open for seven days would mean that as many people could contribute as have something to say. – Sb 2001  12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Sb2001: I think you should qualify that.  Some editors are not happy with the RD as it is.  Now, undoubtedly it can be improved (what can't?) but what is not clear to me is what skin it is off their nose, or anyone's, to have the RD as it is, relative to not having anything.  Why can't they just ignore it?  To be sure, you can't ignore BLP violations, but that can be dealt with in a narrowly tailored way. --Trovatore (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it is a useful part of WP. Well, it should be. There are occasions where sensible and helpful answers are given, but this is often overshadowed by the poor conduct of certain editors. Why would we want to allow them a platform to do whatever they like? – Sb 2001  12:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It not only should be useful, it actually is useful, and very useful, exactly as it exists now. I sharply disagree that this is overshadowed by poor conduct.  I guess this is a matter of taste; some people find such conduct so distasteful that they can't ignore it.  Why should their preferences override those of the ones that find the desks useful?  The sensitive souls can just not use the desks, and no harm done. --Trovatore (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe that a couple of bad eggs (you know who they are) have collectively trashed the Reference Desks - which finally make me decide to look elsewhere.  These days I hang out on Quora.  It uses a *small* amount of advertising to support it's operations - but aside from that, it's the perfect platform for asking and answering questions.  It has a much better way to thread questions and comments - there is peer-reviewing of questions, answers and comments on answers.  There is a good system for merging questions and a light-weight admin presence that quietly steps in and fixes "problems" without being intrusive.  There is even a kind of "Featured Answers" section (analogous to "Featured Articles" in Wikipedia.


 * I've answered around 3,500 questions there in a year(!) - my answers have been viewed 3.8 million times - I have over 100,000 upvotes and 18,000 people who "follow" my answers. Wikipedia's reference desks could have done better...but being forced to fit the business of asking and answering questions using software that's designed to handle writing and commenting on an encyclopedia article is bound to cause problem.  The sheer number of people on Quora makes the moderation system work beautifully.  There is much that WP:RD could gain from looking at how Quora works.  Even things like editing other people's answers is handled elegantly.  It tells you when you're doing well - you can see whether what you're doing is helping people (up-votes), interesting people (followers) or displeasing people (downvotes) and adjust your style accordingly.  People who excel in answering particular kinds of questions get given more questions of a similar kind.  When you ask a question, you can scroll through a list of PROVEN experts in that field and ask them personally if they'd be willing to answer your question for you.


 * Quora is astounding. I've asked questions about the operations of the International Space Station - and gotten an answer from an astronaut who lived there for six months.  Barack Obama, Jimbo Wales, at least a dozen nobel prize winners all answer questions there.


 * It's not without problems - there are some topic areas that are populated by idiots - but the Quora moderators seem to work on those areas to fix them - but most areas I've worked in are full of interesting people - have a good number of interesting, thought provoking questions and answers.


 * IMHO, the reference desks could survive if you could just get rid of the few people who STILL don't "get it" and prefer to be drama queens. But what it REALLY needs is the software infrastructure of Quora.  Combine that with Wikipedia's "reference-based" culture and the naturalness of integrating an encyclopedia with the Q&A system - it could be a winner.  But I don't see Wikipedia's software team being interested in fixing the latter - or the admins sorting out the former.


 * So regrettably, I don't see the WP:RD being fixed. Quora is a clear demonstration of how a Q&A system SHOULD be run. It would be a shame to see the venerable old WP:RD die - but it is what it is.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 04:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The populations of idiots being quietly fixed are intriguing, but the Terms of Service seem a tad greedy. Relative to Wikipedia's hippie sharealike deal, anyway. Probably on par with Facebook, YouTube or other questionable sites where view counts matter, but without a financial upside. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:52, October 20, 2017 (UTC)


 * Quora works the same way as all that "web 2.0" crap. You have a bunch of people upvoting answers and the company hides the ones on the bottom.  So the trolls quietly disappear, as I assume do any but the first few answers since nobody will be getting a chance to upvote them.  (Do you have a way to "friend" each other and form alliances to upvote each other's answers so that you can improve those critical statistics you want to advertise?  hmm, reading Quora it sounds like there are followers who were getting creepy amounts of data about each other)  In other words, it's the same awful soulless inequality, self-promotion and corporatist hive-mind as all that other "social media" that works so well they have Americans clamoring to be behind a new Great Firewall of China to protect themselves from it.
 * The argument here seems to be that a) Free resources can't do as much self-promotion as the Biggest Company, b) Free resources don't have as much software (or interest!) in looking optimal for self-promotion as the Biggest Company, therefore c) Free resources should all give up and everyone should put everything they do under the constant control of the Biggest Company. I mean, that's bloody genius ... we should disband Wikipedia entirely and go home, right????  And all --- WHY? --- because you saw a Nazi troll post something disturbing once?  Because Medeis deleted half a dozen good questions and a dozen marginal questions over the past few months?  That's why every knee on Earth has to bend to the Beast?  Seriously?
 * I say fuck the corporations. You can say this is madness - I say this is Wikipedia! Wnt (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're like one of those people who was around 100 years ago who said "fuck electricity!" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're like one of those people today who wants to see solar panel users hit with special taxes and fees in order to make sure the electrical grid doesn't suffer from competition. Keeping Wikipedia alive, keeping our application of free and open software and data alive, that is not a backward sentiment. Wnt (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is kind of SteveBaker to spare time from his megatriumphs on "perfect platform" Quora to commiserate with us. Has Steve now abandoned Wikipedia's quaint cooperative editing ethic or does he object to strangers correcting these examples of his latest writing: 1) It uses a *small* amount of advertising to support its operations - but aside from that, it's the perfect platform... 2)...at least a dozen Nobel prize winners all answer questions there. ? Blooteuth (talk) 15:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that a totally free-as-in-beer/free-as-in-freedom service with improved terms of service and an open-source license for everything would be an improvement on Quora IF it had the right structural attributes to work as a Q&A system. But the WP:RD approach - while it has all of the right free/free/open attributes - simply doesn't work.  It services a pathetic number of questions and attracts a pathetic number of readers.  I can (and do) make better use of my free time by addressing a wider audience than I can with the vanishingly tiny one that WP:RD has.  I'm helping vastly more people than I ever could at WP:RD.
 * That said - if the WikiMedia Foundation were to decide to add "WikiQuestions" (or maybe "WikiAnswers") to the stable of Wikipedia, WikiCommon, Wiktionary, etc...and if it were done intelligently and with the right kinds of moderation and quality systems in place - then I'd be the first to sign up to it. But the structural problems of WP:RD, with the shoehorning of Q&A functionality into a system for writing articles - the present system simply doesn't work.
 * Note also that I'm also not saying that Wikipedia itself is bad - it's absolutely not. It's a shining example of how to make a great encyclopedia for the peoples of the world.  It's just that it's a sucky platform for them to ask questions and receive answers on. SteveBaker (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To try my own metaphor here, you're sounding like the sort of person who thinks Firefox is a noble idea, but if Opera is a few percent faster then who really cares if you have to authorize some Chinese company to keep six months of your browsing history. Well, I care about whether a project is free or not a lot more than how many people are reading it now.  Free means ... free.  Anything could happen.  We might get people to do "phase II" someday and polish those answers, or they might get reworked by somebody else (even a private company, if that comforts you).  So you tell me you reach more people, but I say history ain't finished yet.  We've built up a database of free stuff, huge numbers of questions and answers, and there's no telling what happens. Wnt (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about "a few percent better". Competing services are functioning thousands of times better. The Stack Exchange network (I don't know how to pull stats for Quorra.) gets more questions in a minute than the Ref Desks get in a day!  And the ref-desks sure ain't trending upwards.
 * You're like someone who insists that NCSA Mosaic is still worth using. ApLundell (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * (btw Wnt, The Stack Exchange network licenses the user content under CC licenses. So the RefDesk is not the last candle against that particular darkness, if that's what's bothering you.ApLundell (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC))
 * Sometimes less is more. McDonald's can pump out a billion McNuggets before my mom can prepare one whole stuffed camel. Fewer people will eat that camel, but they'll go home less wanting. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:59, October 21, 2017 (UTC)

Break 2 (discussion)

 * For the record, I would strongly support the RefDesks evolving into a separate project, a Q&A site that everyone can edit, with transparent moderation practices, which is something Quora emphatically does NOT have and it pisses a lot of their users off no end. I really think there is a niche in the market here - a MediaWiki Q&A site run by volunteers as a WMF project. A considerable amount of Quora answers are just plagiarisms or close paraphrasings of Wikipedia articles yet not released under GFDL or CC-BY-SA, we would have a platform to do this but with better integration with Wikipedia and other projects and actually follow the rules. And we could organise it a lot better than splitting a reference desk into a handful of broad topics! – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  07:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a discussion of process and possibilities to this effect czar  16:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would strongly support this, and have been saying so for a while now. When you reach the point where you have people questioning whether non-ref-desk-regulars should be able to weigh in at all, then spin off as a sister project seems like an obvious route to explore. If they want to have their own standards, then give them their own project, where they can develop their own policies, appoint their own sysops to enforce them, and leave the rest of us kindly out of it, since I'm not sure our opinions are welcome anyway, and I'm not sure most of us want to really deal with it.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   17:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Add my +1 as well here. Sister-project seems to be the best of both worlds solution. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest that, after this RfC closes, someone start another one about this question. It will be a tough sell while the current refdesks remain active, but it's certain that no consensus for a sister project is possible in this RfC. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Specifically? WP:TPG, WP:TPOC and WP:BLP being enforced regularly would solve most of the problems. The remainder would be solved by treating the ref desks as an actual ref desk - question is asked, ref or link to relevant article provided, question closed. What needs to be made clear to the bad actors who are against enforcing Wikipedia's already existing guidelines regarding discussion pages is that failure to abide by them will result in swift admin action. This needs a concerted effort by numerous admins and/or experienced editors outside the usual ref desk population to overcome the walled garden resistance. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some folks get excited figuring out how to communicate with parallel universes ... and some here get joy out of making other Wikipedia editors feel lousy for wanting to talk to each other or learn something. It would be funny to watch what would happen if the second group ever got a dose of their own medicine.  Like if these endless, voluminous, useless administrative forums were put on "NOTFORUM" lockdown and you couldn't just spout off about why the Refdesk is supposed to be bad.  Oh, I'm not saying that could ever happen, but doesn't it seem amazing that out of all the gigabytes of blather Wikipedians manage to generate as they play Wikilawyer and passive-aggressive each other out of the project, the thing that gets all the complaints is that every day we answer a handful of questions in six different categories???? Wnt (talk) 11:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry I fell asleep looking for a point in that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Since Wikipedia was first set up, the internet has changed out of all recognition, AJAX has allowed the user experience of the web to improve and the barrier to entry to drop. Now folk who don't dream in regular expressions are able to do and say stuff. Okay, it means that we have to listen to Trump tweeting, but that's the price you pay for a low barrier to entry, I guess. Why is Wikipedia still relevant? Well the answer probably is because there's no better free encyclopedia that has the same level of popularity and traction. If Google could set up a free encyclopedia tomorrow that was better than Wikipedia and have a nicer user interface, we could reach a tipping point where the editorship defects en masse and only luddites are left behind. It happened with Usenet, it happened with Myspace, and it can happen here.


 * Wikipedia's UI is well behind in the playing field. In my opinion, talk pages are not as usable as Facebook and Q&A isn't as usable as Stack Overflow - those sites have a better user interface than here and are used by more people. If you want Wikipedia to compete with Quora, great - take a look at something like 10 Awesome Q&A Sites and ask yourself the question, "how do we encourage people using those sites to use the Ref Desk"? Until you answer that, the Ref Desk is doomed to being trolled out of existence, and I'm going to continue to hold the opinion that the Ref Desk sucks compared to other sites because its UI is poor and it doesn't have the market share. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Their "awesome" sites are things like Yahoo! Answers. I doubt even the corporatists can put lipstick on that pig.  Wikipedia could easily promote the Ref desk more itself, for example if we moved the Ref desk and nearby links up where the general topic browsing terms are at the top of the Main Page.  Or we could put some giant notice in the place of those fundraising appeals that take up your screen if you ever make the mistake of accidentally enabling scripts to enjoy the wonderful experience AJAX has brought us.  (Seriously, the purpose of Javascript is ads)  And as for better user interface, Wikimedia gave us the Visual Editor - you can use it if you want; when I tried it it didn't seem bad really.  But the thing is ... it doesn't matter if we get more or fewer questions; it's worthwhile either way. Wnt (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For those not in the know, I think the term "UI" means "user interface". 2A00:23C0:7903:B901:542E:486E:9136:263F (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The technical problem with the Refdesks isn't really the UI - it's more that it is so hard to search anything and the indexes are so poor. I tried making up a Lua script to index things better a few years ago but the way I was doing it it would still take a lot of work and/or some bot to set them up right, and really, they needed a content sorting that I couldn't really do in a sane amount of time.  And the questions really could use to be extracted, edited and simplified to give a new set of files with comprehensive best answers minus the dead ends and sidetracks.  This "reference desk phase II" would really help with usability but somebody has to do the work. Wnt (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It could certainly do with some improvements like better search. I'm not at all convinced it should become a me too upvote downvote place though. Too many of those of those are echo rooms reinforcing peoples prejudices. Dmcq (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree about that! When I suggested "refdesk phase II" I meant something like opening individual archived discussions and using them as notes to create a polished Q-and-A much like you'd write an article, together with good tags for categorization.  I mean, I think we would agree that's a great idea ... the only problem is it's work, and a lot of it. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - Just asking for clarification: considering the Support/Oppose comments are under a section titled "Survey", if for example the consensus was for a "support" position, would the Reference Desks be closed then, or would another discussion be done for a final decision? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not strictly speaking the "ui" that's the problem. It's the underlying function.  It's just a flat page.
 * Perfect for writing an encyclopedia, but laughably behind the times for what the reference desk is. ApLundell (talk) 06:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just a random passing IP here, who used the refdesk to ask a question and then noticed the deletion banner at the top. Wasn't there supposed to be new software under development that would turn talk pages into the discussion threads that most other websites have - and wouldn't (one of) the refdesks be a good place to try it? I don't know if it works though, or if it includes an upvote/downvote option. Personally I think a separate Wikilibrarians project with its own domain could be great if it had a better interface, as you mentioned, and also if it was frequently linked to and recommended on this project. It would wither away unless every talk page and welcome template here suggested it to new editors, but with that small effort to build a community, it could become a more open competitor to Quora. My 2 cents anyway. 129.67.118.73 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I would guess I meet the definition of a held desk regular, so I will not !vote per the following, but I think a nuance about the obnoxious atmosphere at the RD got lost in the above noise (which I read in its entirety, yes). The RD atmosphere is toxic because of bickering between the regulars, but passer-bys are relatively spared. This invalidates a few arguments from both sides, IMO, but more to the point: I encourage whoever closes this mess, if it comes to a headcount, to disregard input from the regulars, half of whom will defend the RefDesks tooth and nail to protect their playground, half of whom try to win their long-fought battle against the first half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigraan (talk • contribs) 14:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the people who actually contribute and spend time on a project, in favor of people who don't have much experience there does not seem like wisdom to me. Also I am highly amused by the people who still regularly contribute but !vote in support of closing the desks. It's like announcing to WP that they enjoy wasting their time on useless projects. I encourage them to simply stop posting there it they really think it should be destroyed.
 * I will indeed defend the ref desks, but that's because I've seen all kinds of great answers and references there, not because I happen to also contribute. Also, sadly, I only see a few of our actual good regular responders !voting and commenting above (e.g. Jayron, Wnt, Fgf, a few others). I wonder what think: they are all highly trained, but that doesn't matter, because they (semi-)regularly give well-referenced answers in their fields of expertise that do not rely upon the reader trusting the respondent's authority.
 * (This list is by no means exhaustive, it's just the handful of users who demonstrate exemplary ref-desk conduct, and who are part of what makes it a valuable place.) SemanticMantis (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment there appears to be a lot of trolling from IPs, and dealing with that appears to be a main cause of controversy. Would semi-protecting the Reference Desk be a possible option? power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's already been tried before, and semi-protection is applied on occasion, but considering how the Reference desk works (kind of like a help area for articles), indefinite semis would probably do more harm than good. Edit filters and stronger enforcement of the guidelines would probably be more effective. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Many questioners are not Wikipedia editors, and we are never going to require registration - let alone auto-confirm - for asking a question at the desks. You would also exclude all unregistered editors, including some who have long and respectable editing histories. Trolling is only a part of the issue anyway. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  23:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If this proposal is successful, can the Reference Desks be temporarily hosted on Wikiversity until a "WikiRefDesk" sister project is created? KMF (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps people here are failing to understand the magnitude of the problem. I looked at what (I believe) are the two most popular RD pages - "Science" and "Misc" for the last 30 days. A year or two ago, I was a regular on WP:RD - I answered around 5 to 10 questions a day (things were a little busier back then) - and people seemed to like what I wrote. I got sick of the continual bickering and interventions from the like of Medeis and the continual annoying "buzz" of attempted humor and other lame answers. So I decided to call it a day and move on. These days I provide the exact same kinds and quality of answer to very similar questions on Quora.


 * According to the "Page Information" for the two most popular RD's: Science and Misc, those two pages have had 18,000 and 13,000 page views over the past 30 days. Over that time, there were mostly between 1 and 4 questions per day to each of those two desks. You're being asked maybe 5 to 6 questions per day on those two desks combined.  How many people benefit from those answers is hard to say - there are no quality metrics that you can point to.  At about 1000 views and 5 questions per day - and with the OP and the answerers both visiting the page multiple times to track the gradual input of answers - you're clearly not getting many readers who are not either asking questions or answering them.  One person asks a question, several people answer it - and only a couple of other people are really reading the answers.  Perhaps those two desks together are helping 50 people per day...tops.


 * On Quora I answer the same kinds of questions you'd see on those two WP:RD pages with answers of similar depth and quality and so forth - and I still answer about 10 to 15 questions per day. I do EXACTLY what I used to do on WP:RD Misc & Science.  Just *MY* answers ALONE got 964,000 page views over the past 30 days - that's not all of the questions answered by all of the people.  That's MY ANSWERS ALONE.  I got more people clicking the "UPVOTE" button on my answers over that period than the ENTIRE WP:RD had page views.  And we're not talking ALL of Quora's science and misc questions - we're talking just the one's I answered over that time.

So just one person (and I'm not claiming any special skills here) armed with the right software and the enough eyes on the system can help between ten and a hundred times more people than all of the WP:RD Science/Misc contributors put together - then WP:RD is (by any measure) a tremendous waste of human brain power. All of our smart, intelligent and resilient authors could be far more helpful to the human race if they did the exact same thing they are doing now on a web site that's DESIGNED for answering the questions of the general public.

My conclusion remains: If you can re-imagine WP:RD in the style of a properly organized peer-reviewed Q&A system - and if it's pushed as a valuable resource from the Wikipedia home page - then it could become as good as, or better than, Quora. But as it is now, it's a horribly inefficient mess.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have been on and off at refdesks since at least 2011 and, as has been noted, I think the problem is really overblown. Aside from a few trainwrecks, I still get overwhelmingly good answers (and even broken English questions are often tackled). Those who perceive the RD atmosphere as toxic can simply move on to other Q&A websites. Often it's a matter of sense of humor simply because we can't be deadly serious all the time. Unlike other Q&A websites, refdesks are designed to serve particularly the needs of Wikipedia editors so that they don't have to register elsewhere (such as on Quora) to ask something or request a source for wikiediting. The RDs are thus germane to improving Wikipedia and I recall some questions and replies highlighting the shortcomings of a relevant article or its absence. Thus the claim that it's a waste of time and that volunteers should move to other Q&A sites is inappropriate. And the relatively low present number of refdesk questions is not a particularly useful metric. It would be worse if the refdesks were overwhelmed by unanswered questions. Given that out of 70 million registered WP users there are only roughly 469,000 active users, the mere fact that the questions are still answered is telling. The same noble volunteer force powers the entire Wikipedia. Brandmeistertalk  20:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Given that out of 70 million registered WP users there are only roughly 469,000 active users" - I've done a few stats over the past couple of days, and I have found that about 125,000 users have 150+ mainspace edits (and that includes editors who retired ten years ago), while about 37,500 are Extended Confirmed (ie: over 30 days' service and 500+ edits anywhere). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Ritchie333 You don't really need to research; the WMF collects this data. By the very loose "5 edits in the last month" definition of "active" en-wiki has about 30,000 active users; by the more realistic "100 edits in the last month" definition we have between 3300 and 3500. (It always drops in September as the kids go back to school, if you're wondering about the sudden apparent precipitous crash.) &#8209; Iridescent 10:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've mistakenly quoted the whole WP instead of the English WP which was what I meant. But the active user proportion is roughly the same anyway. Brandmeistertalk  11:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am honestly curious -- would Quora be able to match the degree of interesting information I obtained in this question? I mean, I started out by trying to see whether alternate probabilities of a mathematician-in-a-box can be used to do quantum computing.  With some really interesting answers, especially by User:icek~enwiki, it came up that Grover's algorithm can be used to rapidly (but not immediately) determine the right randomly seeded world-line for the mathematician in question.  I then wanted to invert the quantum computing system so only the processor is isolated, thereby allowing alternate universes (seeded by the quantum circuit) to be processed to determine the correct result.  Which brings us to questions of whether the Copenhagen interpretation or something else is correct - how does a state-vector collapse anyway?  I am actually seriously thinking it might actually be possible to create a device to detect whether something has a soul by this mechanism, assuming a certain paranormal/causality violation/universal boundary condition explanation for how that works.  Now the question is, can Quora actually assist with this kind of intrepid multi-legged flight of fancy, or does it corporate-bitch-slap you and tell you that's all much too creative to talk about? Wnt (talk) 00:20, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Emphatically, yes. A question on Quora gets content attached to it in at half a dozen ways:


 * You can add your comment on the question itself - not an "answer" but just a comment - like "Your question needs clarification because...".
 * You can answer it - a complete self-contained answer that does not refer to any of the other answers.
 * You can comment on existing (or your own) answers - so "Your answer is wrong because..." or "I'd like to amplify your answer by adding this..." or "It would have been nice if you'd mentioned this...". Comments are threaded, so you can comment on comments...just like on WP:RD only in a somewhat more structured way.
 * You can offer an edit to someone else's answer. It won't "go live" unless they actively OK it...but it's good for helping people with typos, math errors, etc.
 * You can offer an edit to someone else's question. Same deal - it won't go live until the OP OK's it.
 * You can merge similar questions (although it may get un-merged by someone else) - and Quora will merge all of the answers and comments into a single stream.


 * All questions, answers and comments can be "upvoted" or "downvoted" - and if they are downvoted 'enough' they'll get pushed into a "This content has been hidden - click here to read it" section.


 * So - to directly answer your question - YES! Emphatically yes. Threaded "comment" conversations happen all the time - they get deep and complicated - and they can diverge from the topic as much as you like (although if you get lots more downvotes than upvotes, you might get "hidden").
 * For example, someone asked how we can prove that the world is round. I gave a decent, considered answer - and so did about 20 other people...but at least a couple of them quoted the experiment performed by Eratosthenes (where he measured the circumference of the earth by measuring the length of the shadows cast by two sticks spaced 100 miles apart).  But this doesn't PROVE that the earth is round.  It could either be that the Earth is round (with a radius of 4,000 miles) and the Sun is very, very far away...OR...(as the Flat Earther's rightly point out) it could demonstrate that the Earth is flat and the Sun is just a tiny ball, 4,000 miles away.  Eratosthenes isn't a proof of the round earth...it's just a way to calculate it's size *IF* it's round.  So I point this out - and a LONG chain of comments ensues in which this is argued back and forth.  It wound up with a debate about whether Eratosthenes was guilty of petitio principii (begging the question) by effectively saying "The earth is round...experiments...Conclusion: The Earth is Round." -- This is not atypical.


 * Quora has a VERY small number of staff - they couldn't possibly have time to read even the tiniest percentage of posts there. I've been answering questions on Quora for about a year now (and recall that I was once a big time ref-desk regular - so I know of what I speak) - I've never once had a "corporate bitch slap" from Quora people. But down-votes from the community do ROUTINELY push truly crappy questions and truly crappy answers into the nether-world.
 * I *LOVED* working on WP:RD - I did it for many years - my edit count was embarrassingly high. I now work on Quora - and it's every bit as much fun, except without a single idiot being able to trash things - and with a HUGE readership making it feel much more worthwhile.  (Also, you *NEVER* run out of interesting questions to answer...it's like drinking from a fire hose.) SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The "up-vote"—"down-vote" feature is a weakness of Quora's design. The best answers can and do get pushed into the "This content has been hidden, click here to read it" section. Participants are not necessarily knowledgeable. Nor are Quora "moderators" necessarily knowledgeable. It is my contention that all honest attempts to answer a question should be equally readable. Some responses should not be hidden, sometimes out of the ignorance of those voting. Knowledge is not comparable to consumer items. Yes, I want to know if others were satisfied with a pair of sneakers. No, I am not interested in their prejudices about subjects that they misunderstand in the first place. Disclaimer: my observations only concerned questions in the realm of the visual arts. I assume bad faith concerning Quora: their priorities include generating traffic for advertisers. Their "best" answers tend favor restating popular misconceptions. Bus stop (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've just moved 3 Oppose !votes from here (the discussion section) to the Survey section above. Folks, please be sure to put your Support or Oppose in the proper section or it might be missed by the closer(s). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Quora currently does not allow for askers to write in question details (this was allowed in the past), making asking some questions (especially the long ones) impossible. If the Refdesk were to be closed, I am not sure about going to Stack Exchange. VarunSoon (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Possible Reforms?
Well, it now appears likely that this RFC may be closed as a simple No or Oppose or Keep, in which case we don't need to address the reforms. However, it would still be useful to identify possible or proposed reforms at least to see whether they are worth considering further. The only ideas that I have seen mentioned are: stricter enforcement of existing guidelines (by multiple editors); permanent semi-protection (by at least one editor); moderation (by a few editors); ArbCom discretionary sanctions (by me); new software. I would suggest that any approach that doesn't fit with the existing implementation of the English Wikipedia should be dismissed; I am sure that a few editors think that keeping a Reference Desk function nominally in the English Wikipedia is so important that we should do something that isn't really English Wikipedia to support it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a non-software solution that will make the refdesk not seem sad compared to other more modern platforms.
 * It's like we're all standing around trying to put in screws with a stone hammer, and everybody knows we'll never be able to afford a screw-driver, so we pretend that hammering in screws with a rock is a perfectly valid personal preference. ApLundell (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I will point out that there is general agreement that better enforcement of existing guidelines is a good idea, but no agreement on how to enforce the guidelines more strictly. I will point out that moderation is not currently done anywhere in the English Wikipedia. I will point out that even temporary semi-protection due to trolling or other disruptive editing causes a few of the regulars to scream and bellow because the Reference Desks are too special as an outreach to unregistered editors to compromise them by applying a basic rule, but never mind reality. I think that leaves ArbCom discretionary sanctions as the one plausible reform that is consistent with the way the English Wikipedia is currently handled. Do other editors, regardless of whether they want to keep or discard the Reference Desks, have other reform ideas? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While there are problems, I don't think it has been established that they are crippling the refdesks or massively hurting the project. That does not mean that nothing should be done, but we should keep Perfect is the enemy of good and the Pareto principle in mind. Maybe it's as good as it gets with reasonable effort (maybe not, but let's not rule out that case). I'd say this discussion has already generated more bits and bytes than a few months worth of refdesk problems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, If semi-protecting doesn't damage the ref-desks, then that's a stronger argument than anyone could possibly make here that they serve no purpose. ApLundell (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why I support closing them rather than attempting to fix them. We obviously have a crowd who wants to shoot the breeze over there and resents that the encyclopedia should insist they play by the rules. If our admins can't bring the editors into compliance with BLP because of a clique of Wikipedians that don't write articles, then the problem can't be fixed. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have several problems with that paragraph. "We obviously have a crowd [...] which resents that the encyclopedia should insist they play by the rules" - not in evidence. Of course there are different users with different viewpoints, including difference on the interpretation of our rules. But that is not different then in other parts of the project. Maybe I've worked in the wrong spaces here, but I've seen a lot more problems at, say e-Cat, global warming, creationism, Jesus, Holocaust denial, and so on. I don't see a particularly problematic "crowd" at the refdesk, nor any significant number of BLP problems, much less a significant fraction. I also don't see "a clique that [doesn't] write articles" - many of the refdesk regulars have written and are making significant contributions to the article side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I encourage people to look at The refdesk ten years ago and compare it to last month. It's dying. And competing services are growing like mad. The Stack Exchange Network now gets slightly more question-askers in a minute than the RefDesk does in a day. With that in mind ... what's the goal? Is the goal to be a distant also-ran? Is the goal to provide a different service that fills a niche? (Which one?) What value does it serve, to Wikipedia or to the world? ApLundell (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The arguments you use above seem disingenuous.
 * 1) If our software is so sucky for carrying out conversations that we need to delete the Refdesk because it's no good for that purpose, then I propose we delete WP:Village pump (policy) right now.  I mean, obviously the Village Pump is a tremendously low-tech stone age mechanism compared to having Xi Jinping lay out a policy course for us in the Five Year Plan, and it just generates endless drama and tension.
 * 2) Semi-protection does create problems, which is why the regulars were generally infuriated with it and we made a big deal about it when an admin started unilaterally imposing it a while back.  Yeah, I know, more "drama" to be held against us, that we didn't think admin action was needed!
 * 3) Yes, there are competing services.  Ten years ago they didn't have ads on the TV where people asked their friend Google or Alexa any question they had at the top of their head.  Now many of them have these devices always listening to see what they are interested in.  They can look toward the records they generate for the Utah Data Center the way that more primitive generations might have looked to God to remember them in the afterlife.  And yet, where do those answers come from?  Wikipedia, a lot of the time.  I bet even our own Refdesk archives are rich sources for those answers the friendly electronic voices yield.  In any case, what of it?  Having competitors doesn't mean that the activity is worthless - to the contrary, it is proof that others find it worthwhile to do also.


 * Now I will repeat the reform I suggested -- if we really want a nice pretty outcome from the Refdesk, it means that we need to take the archive files and use them to generate a new set of files of neatly edited questions and answers, with abundant categorization tags and a cleverer way to search them. We can do that, but it is a lot of work.  And for some people here, I suppose it is less rewarding work to do than trying to get pieces of Wikipedia shut down. Wnt (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right as to a lot of work, and I predict that few of those saying we should keep and reform the desks (after many years of people saying that to no effect) will be seen anywhere near that work. It will fail due to lack of support and participation. It's easy to !vote in an RfC, saying what we think others should do with their time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that's what the deletionists are doing. At least the people writing answers are generating something useful that can be taken another step later.  There is nothing on Wikipedia that doesn't need improvement, article or otherwise; it is a multigenerational project. Wnt (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You still seem unable to grasp that we have been saying the desks "need improvement" for many years - including RfCs very much like this one - and no improvement has been forthcoming. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  17:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wnt : Your Point 1) illustrates the problem. You're arguing that the Refdesks are an acceptable place to have a conversation. Ok, but that's not what they're supposed to do. Modern question/answer sites like StackExchange and Quorra actively discourage conversation through UX design and get better results because of it. Your Point 2) I agree with. I routinely argue that semi-protect does damage the theoretical goal of the refdesk. If others are saying that the damage isn't even noticeable, that can only be because the ref desk's positive effect is basically nil these days.  Point 3) I don't understand. Yes. The encyclopedia is a valuable source of information. Nobody is suggesting shutting that down! It doesn't automatically follow that all Open Content projects will one day reach the same level of value. Some fail.
 * I really think your fear of non-open products is stopping you from honestly evaluating how badly this particular battle has been lost. The refdesks aren't helping the cause of Open Content, If they're noticed at all, it's as a humiliating example of a stereotypical failure state. ApLundell (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Indeed the clear identification of problems is an absolute must. From what I understand from more than one hour spent to read the arguments above it seems that a perceived problem raised by some who have commented above is the ocurrence of comments/questions which criticize Donald Trump and that is included in BLP violations. I want therefore to ask: Where in the Refdesks Math and Science Archives have such problems appeared? Can someone point links to such incidents? I personally have never encountered such incidents and I say/estimate that such incidents of, for instance, BLP violations are very less likey to impossible to occur in Math and Science refdesk. Perhaps such incidents are likely to appear in some narrow areas of Refdesk Humanities!(?)! Thoughts?--82.137.12.149 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In order to reform, we need to more clearly identify what the problems are, and prioritize them. Is the problem bickering among editors? Is the problem that the RDs attract trolls?  Is the problem answering questions based on personal opinion instead of sources?  Is the problem not enough rules?  Is the problem too many rules?  Each of these “problems” require different solutions.  Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One user is 80% of the problem. three users are well over 95% of the problem. A single admin watching over the refdesks and issuing warnings and blocks for anyone who refuses to follow our policies and guidelines (the real ones, not the imaginary ones that say you can delete anything that you don't like) would solve the problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * People who believe in science are frequently displeased with Trump and his people. Commenting on politics (including criticism, which is most of politics nowadays after all) is not a BLP violation, and by and large we don't need the 'problem' to be addressed.  To the contrary, admin suppression of political sentiments is likely to be taken as overt political bias and censorship - under the best of circumstances by both sides equally; otherwise even more justifiably. Wnt (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not believe WP:RD can be fixed within the MediaWiki software framework. This isn't a matter of coming up with better policies or anything of that nature. A proper Q&A system needs to be set up entirely differently. Again (and I'm sorry to keep beating this particular drum) the Quora system is simply better. (NOTE: Jimbo Wales clearly agrees because he's a frequent user of Quora and I don't think I've ever seen him either ask or answer a question on WP:RD.)

The world NEED a world-class, fully open, advert-free Q&A system. It needs to have the ethics and vision of Wikipedia - but it DOESN'T need the MediaWiki software. It needs something with Questions, Answers and Comments more clearly separated. It needs upvotes and downvotes and ways to report abuse that are outside of the editing realm. It needs tighter categorizations. It needs a whole bunch of stuff that you simply cannot do with five long, cooperatively edited, text files...which is what WP:RD is.

It also needs the backing of the WikiMedia foundation. If we went to all the effort to write custom WP:RD software (multiple man-years!) and still got only a dozen questions a day - then that would be a disaster. We need the backing and promotion of Wikipedia. There would need to be a button next to EVERY article that says "ASK THE AUTHORS A QUESTION ABOUT THIS ARTICLE". Just that tie-in alone would be enough to wipe the likes of Quora off of the map.

Encyclopedias are a wonderful thing - but so many people have trouble either finding or interpreting things they find there - that we NEED a comprehensive, peer-reviewed Q&A system to provide the necessary readership support.

That was why WP:RD was created in the first place - but it has the wrong structure - and people don't know about it.

So REPLACE WP:RD...and if you can't, then let's just kill it and get it over with.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From what I can see Quora doesn't place emphasis on sources but rather allows responders to self-identify as experts. Am I misunderstanding Quora? Bus stop (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You can self-identify - but whether anyone will believe you is tough to guess. I think, mostly not.  I tried self-identifying and NOT self-identifying - and it didn't seem to affect the number of questions and upvotes I got.  "Experts" emerge from the volume of answers they give on some narrow topic - plus the number of up-votes they have on those answers.  So expertise labelling is really an emergent property of the system that tends to back up the self-identification.  When you ask a question, you can specifically address it to up to 16 people who YOU think will be best able to answer it (so they get notifications of that) - but it also goes out into the feed for that topic so anyone looking for something good to answer will see it.  My experience with questions I've asked has been very good.  I've asked questions about everything from Physics and Math to plumbing and car maintenance - and I've only once managed to 'stump' the experts and gotten no good answers. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The rational approach would be to kill Refdesk 1.0 now; then, if there are enough people willing to devote the enormous amount of time and effort, they could discuss and implement Refdesk 2.0, whether that ends up using our existing framework or something entirely different, whether a Wikipedia initiative or a WMF one. Odds of this happening after we have so many Opposes? Pretty close to nil. We will keep the status quo pending reforms or replacement that will never happen, and we'll be back here with all the same arguments sometime around 2022. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps start building a RD-2.0 FIRST and THEN kill RD-1.0 once it's up and running. If you kill it, wait a year, then restart it - you'll lose all of your RD regulars...which would be bad. SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A far as I can see the main current problem with the reference desks is not with trollish IPs or anything like that but regulars on the desk itself causing disruption. I would like to see the guidelines enforced more firmly. The one straightforward change I would make is to allow a mark to be put on queries saying that one considers it possibly contentious and that editors should be careful to ensure their answers should follow the guidelines strictly in giving straightforward factual answers with references to reliable sources or articles in Wikipedia. Editor who persist in digressive answers on possibly contentious topics despite such warnings should be banned. There may be reasons to remove e.g. banned questioners or clear trolls but banning or hatting should be only very carefully done - there are many people of less than average intelligence who do deserve a straightforward answer rather than being removed. Dmcq (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that a major cause of the pointless digressive side discussions is a tendency to interrogate question askers with pointless followup questions. If someone asks "Why is the sky blue?" Someone else will inevitably counter-ask "define 'blue'.".
 * Those pointless clarifications are easy to post. So it's human nature that people jump in with them as often as possible, while letting someone else do the hard work of researching and explaining the answer.
 * I don't know how you could make a rule against those pointless interrogations without also banning legitimate, necessary requests for clarification.
 * If I could down-vote replies, I'd downvote that kind of noise when I saw it. (and expect others to do the same to me.) But as it stands, I'm not going to reply with "That question is unhelpful and slightly rude." because that would make things so much worse.
 * So sections start with a question, fill up with easy guesses, pointless counter-questions, demands to cite the premise of the question, and other noise that just invites long irrelevant discussion. I just can't imagine any rule or guideline you could make to stop it.  And enforcing the guideline! Imagine!  Imagine going to ANI and expecting to get consensus to ban someone for making too many well-meaning easy guesses!
 * Other sites have solved these human issues with UX changes, but with the current very low daily volume of the refdesk, I can't imagine the foundation sparing any programmer resources to experiment on this issue. For a website that serves millions of people a day, it wouldn't be worth it to them to help improve service for a dozen people a day.ApLundell (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From your edit summary, "And my personal pet peeve : Someone asks a question about the plot to a popular story, and editors trip over each-other for the glory of being the first to condescendingly explain that fiction is made up." So, how would you handle it when the OP asks a question whose answer is not in the work itself? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Can I also put a +1 by SteveBaker's idea of a query button besides articles. It need not just be seen by the people editing the article but could also be seen by people monitoring a relevant reference desk. (And can I say I do not want a +1 or -1 upvote downvote system even if I said +1 there) Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I dislike the "UPVOTE" function at Quora as it can also serve to reinforce and perpetuate commonly held misunderstandings. Admittedly this is based on only a brief perusal of Quora. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * SteveBaker's idea of a query button beside articles has merits of being programmable, non-judgemental and it functions at the source of questions. This could be a unexpectedly constructive take-away from this long thread. I would like to develop Steve's idea further as follows.


 * Whereas a query button next to every mainspace article would amount of millions of buttons each offering a contact service that Wikipedia cannot guarantee, that would also seem to some readers a tempting distraction to "chat" instead of reading the article carefully, would likely also intercept comments that should go to the article discussion page, and I think the button would be problematic when it appears on mirror sites and on article printouts;


 * I propose instead that we recommend one or both of these software changes. I believe they are practical and affordable but it needs a WMF programmer to confirm.


 * 1. Modify the form that appears on pressing "Ask a new question!" by dividing the field "Subject/headline" into two fields labelled
 * - Wikipedia article that nearest matches your question (may leave blank)
 * - Your question subject
 * (Reasoning for the above: the form gives the questioner just a nudge to let the Ref. Desk reponders know what article they are already looking at, similar to SteveBaker's proposed button. The two fields could fit within the present 255-character limit so the software change is minor.)


 * 2. Notify users who are watching the article named by a question that it is mentioned on the relevant Ref. Desk.


 * Blooteuth (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Re ApLundell's comment, see User experience design. 31.52.216.53 (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The "query button" is reasonably appealing - though untested, and the details are crucial (because it will generate a lot of questions whose answer will tend to be 'duh, can't you read?'). Note Wikipedia has played with fancy Javascript and WP:article feedback before and it was a complete failure, whereas the Refdesks work fine everywhere except in the minds of people who are constitutively against them.  Nothing else I see here appeals to me.  Especially, the whole upvote/downvote thing (with the inevitable sequelae, universal on "social media", that there will be infinite scrolling and a Javascript interface carefully designed to make it practically impossible to access the answers at the bottom of the infinite scroll).  Any good mechanism for serious discussion among equals will have a low Gini coefficient, i.e. everyone's answers are visible to all.  The social media model is one of intentional inequality.  More generally, the Usonian ideal of having Responsible People in Charge design something to micro-manage it for specific purposes, whether it be homes or discussion mechanisms, is intrinsically flawed, because the best ways of doing things emerge from the bottom up. Wnt (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The best reform I can think of is to institute some sort of moderation/clerking where we have some agreed means by which to close down/remove inappropriate questions and/or responses. Not sure of the specifics, but having someone uninvolved who can assess questions and responses that are within already established guidelines or not may be the best way forward.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 11:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, that's pretty much how all this started -- the proposed system was to have anybody but Medeis do it. Wnt (talk) 12:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Trying to resolve the problems of the Reference Desks through new software programming, or what have you, could take a long time. I recommend that inappropriate discussions be closed and hatted, and the persons responsible for the inappropriate content be warned and, if they persist, blocked. That wouldn't require any technical changes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You're missing the ENTIRE POINT here. The problem is that the closing and hatting of "inappropriate" material is being done - but very, very badly.  Any random individual can be judge, jury and executioner.  This causes big arguments - and is the ultimate cause of this entire RfC chain.  Binary moderation in a world that contains an infinite number of shades of grey is the problem here.  Very *VERY* often, I'd see a slightly odd-ball question, which could be answered carefully and intelligently - and some annoying idiot would "vanish" it just because they couldn't see that it was actually an interesting question.  Then the "hatting" and "deletion" might go unnoticed - or it might often result in a hatting-war with all of the usual 3RR bullshit.  With an "upvote/downvote" system (with automatic hatting when something gets lots more downs than ups) you get "Wisdom of the Crowd" effects which is The Right Thing.  If lots of people found the thread valuable - and a few did not...bad luck to the few.  With many downvotes and few ups - it vanishes quietly into the sump where only the very enthusiastic will read it. SteveBaker (talk) 14:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Metropolitan90 correctly points out that the feasibility of the software changes that SteveBaker and myself have proposed are uncertain without input from a programmer competent with the Wiki software, specifically with MediaWiki. The WMF is its leading user and developer of wiki-based projects, and already hosts some extended functions. @Katherine Maher you one hopes, as executive director, are able to support or quash our various ideas (for improvement with new buttons, form layout or voting) by checking them against the Foundation's resources of time and money. May we have guidance about this? Blooteuth (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Metropolitan90 Said : " I recommend that inappropriate discussions be closed and hatted, and [...]"
 * Ok. We tried that. Didn't work. Now what?
 * In fact that's exactly the plan that has failed so badly that there is now a proposal to shut down the RefDesk entirely. ApLundell (talk) 22:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose--the reference desks aren't great yet, but they're enormously more professional than they were a few years ago, and can be quite helpful. I've learned many important things from the desks. Also, a lot of of people working at the reference desk probably have been sweating blood trying to improve it, putting up with less polite and unknowledgeable colleagues, and it wouldn't be fair to pull the plug on the project now.Rich (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, did I cast my vote properly, and in the right location on this thread? Should I go back and boldface it. I do want my oppose vote to be counted and read. thanks.Rich (talk) 03:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The best reform is to do away with the RD entirely, and as a compromise, shunt it off to its own Wikimedia project, taking its regulars with it - for better or for worse - where they can have their own rules, admins, crats, and arbs, and just get on with it. They'll soon find out how well they compete with other Internet Q&A sites. They'll either continue to treat it as a blog or  MMORPG, or they  will buck their ideas up.
 * The next best  solution  would be to T-ban one or two regulars from the Reference Desk, and introduce some boilerplate answers such as Thank  you for  your question, but this is unrelated to current or future encyclopedia content for Wikipedia, with  perhaps a couple of other appropriate boiler plates in a dropdown à la Twinkle. And also, instead of giving lengthy answers, just provide a link to a relevant Wikipedia article, policy, guideline, or help page - which theoretically is all a city librarian on the desk in the lobby does. He/she doesn't try to teach the whole answer to the enquirer, and certainly does not give some silly response if they don't know, and there are not three or four library employees all jostling to be the first to answer.
 * The other, and quite radical solution is something on the lines suggested by : take the archive files and use them to generate a new set of files of neatly edited questions and answers, with abundant categorization tags and a cleverer way to search them. It could be done with semantic searching, but it would be very expensive to set up and in view of the difficulty of even getting some urgently needed essential software prioritised, at Wikipedia pace it wouldn't happen this half of the century. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * MMORPG - I had to look that one up.  It means "Massively multiplayer online role-playing game". 92.8.218.38 (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, let's not spend any time trying to "generate a new set of files of neatly edited questions and answers". There are two big drawbacks with this approach:
 * It's a huge amount of work, with not nearly enough reward.
 * It presumes that having people ask questions is a problem, and it presumes that the solution to this problem is to give question-askers a resource they can "easily" search instead. But this is fallacious, insulting, and wrong.  Sometimes, people don't want to do any more research, they just want to ask for, and receive, some help.  (Presumably we understand this, otherwise we wouldn't be offering a question-answering service in the first place.)  If question-askers wanted to do research instead of asking questions, they've already got the entire Internet to do that with, so we don't need to spend time setting up more, new searchable content.  Creating a "high-quality repository of answered questions" is the stated primary goal of Stack Overflow, and it's incredibly annoying, because it's in opposition to what ends up being the secondary goal of actually helping people by answering their questions now.
 * —Steve Summit (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A similar experience: This reminds of me a forum I used to help moderate some time ago, which had one sub-forum which was intended for Straightforward factual answers to straightforward factual questions. It was one of the most problematic and hardest to moderate, with the reasons for the removal of posts being along the lines of "The board is for factual answers, not discussions or opinions", "Please don't question or criticize the OP, just answer if you can or don't if you can't" - essentially variants of "This reply is not a factual answer to the question asked" or "This it not a factual question". It was extremely hard to get people to understand and adhere to the purpose of the sub-forum, and it ended up being managed pretty strictly by topic banning repeat offenders. It sounds to me like the ref desks are experiencing very similar problems. Maybe a similar solution is needed here - establish clear ground rules (eg "The ref desks are for asking factual questions, and for answering factual questions with references to Wikipedia content") and topic ban editors who will not adhere to those rules? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've just read Kudpung กุดผึ้ง's comments above, and yes, we also used boiler plate answers for a number of common problems. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue people are missing with the moderation is that it needs to be independent moderation. The only way it works is if it is done by someone who has never, is not, and never intends to become an active participant in the discussions there.  People who participate in the ref desks have a vested social interest in, for example, seeing their own questions answered or seeing their own responses on display for the world to see.  If there was a final, independent arbitrator that we all agreed had the final say, and if you didn't like it well then tough noogies, we could then just leave it to that person (or persons) to remove inappropriate material.  There needs to be a final "buck stops here" decision maker for it to work, a person above which there can be no appeals.  Unless and until such a person or group of people is so empowered to do so, there will be no equitable means to moderate the ref desks.  Moderation has to be independent, inscrutable, and most of all unappealable, to the point where we all agree that reverting such a moderator is an act of disruption.  It just CANNOT be anyone who participates in the desks.  It has to be someone disinterested in them who simply blindly applies the rules without care for who the persons are themselves.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 12:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've found personally that using the desks, a question will be brought up that's both interesting and on a topic I hadn't thought about or known existed. When it's been answered, not only have I learnt something new, but I've then been encouraged to go and check out the article on the topic-as a stepping stone to direct people to new articles that are of interest to them, it performs a useful function. Often when the question has been answered, the discussion goes off onto a tangent-but may bring in other similar topics and links to interesting sites,even if they're not directly answering the original question. Lemon martini (talk) 21:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - anathema to some as moving the refdesks to a separate project might be, perhaps we could reach out to reference desks on other Wikipedias as well and hear what their experiences with their own refdesks have been like? If there are shared problems then that would lend weight to the idea of a separate reference desk project. Alcherin (talk) 23:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. The baby and the bathwater are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable both at the Reference desk and at the project as a whole. Just as we would not throw out the project as a whole so too should we not throw out the Reference desks. Who cares if the Reference desks have been a "source of bickering"? The project itself has been a source of bickering. The improbable fact is that out of a din of bickering good work prevails. We should not underestimate our culture. The existence of the encyclopedia shows that our culture generates good work. Why are we doubting that more good comes out of the Reference desks than the squabbling that is all too easy to find? Bus stop (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Who cares if the Reference desks have been a "source of bickering"? The project itself has been a source of bickering." Most people don't care about a small group bickering and find something else to do. For example, if BBC News run comments on a news story (random example), I avoid them like the plague as they're full of jerks, even though I might have opinions on the topic that might be useful to somebody if I wrote them down. I think the main motivation for me getting involved in serious WP editing was because it was the most popular wiki. That's about it. If it were not the major hit in a Google search, I'd have given this place a wide berth (as many of my friends and colleagues have done). <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —there are as many motivations for editing Wikipedia as there are editors. OK, I don't know that for a fact. But I think fielding questions on the Reference desks can be rewarding for the editors doing that. I would concede that the really serious work is the writing of articles that fill in the gaps in the encyclopedia that already exists, and I don't think that work will ever be finished. I admire the people that studiously research and write articles. I find it very hard to write about anything that I am not fiercely interested in. But I find the more freeform Reference desks very captivating both for the editors and those asking questions. I have on occasion asked questions. I sometimes weigh in with a response to a question. More than any of the commercial ventures that are out there, Wikipedia's Reference desks are intellectual. That may be a pretentious description and an untrue description on some occasions, but I just like the cerebral attitude. Bus stop (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Jayron's proposal would be a step in the wrong direction.  Other websites have moderators against whose decisions there is no appeal .   Wikipedia's strength is its community oversight. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the argument you're making here. The rules a refdesk moderator would enforce would have to be determined with community consensus, and it's not like they would have the power to impose a site-wide block or ban. Alcherin (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry if this has been suggested above (way too much for me to read) but maybe a solution would be to set up this separate ref-desk-wiki first and then propose the closure of this as redundant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Towards a close/the scores so far

 * I'm not suggesting closing yet as discussion is still ongoing, but I've just done a count and I thought I'd note it here rather than forget it in case anyone is interested (and it is just a count rather than the assessment of arguments that would be needed to evaluate a consensus). Anyway, I make it:
 * Support = 40
 * Oppose = 87 (89 if you include Reform, which implicitly opposes closure)
 * Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated after I moved 3 Oppose !votes from the discussion section to the survey section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So it looks like there will be no consensus to close the reference desks. That being said, there are a lot of editors who have legitimate complaints, which raises the question, why is are the reference desks such a huge problem while the help desk is not? Could it be that the help desk follows the rules that are in effect everywhere else in Wikipedia while he reference desk has some "house rules" that allow certain editors to edit or delete the words of other editors in situations not listed at WP:TPOC? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few legitimate complaints, but I haven't really noticed that anyone else is exercised about TPOC specifically. FWIW I agree that people should not be editing other people's comments except for formatting yada yada yada as specified there (but I also haven't seen very many people in violation).
 * It seems to me that the main complaint is just from people who don't like the chattiness. Frankly I don't consider that a "legitimate complaint".  If you don't like it, don't read it; problem solved.  No one has made a serious case that the chattiness harms the rest of the encyclopedia. --Trovatore (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish's support vote above largely sums up the main issues people have raised that you seem to have missed. Alcherin (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I re-read it, and my opinion is the same. Most of the complaints are still really about chattiness, and not about the issues that Stanton is talking about.  Also, I do not think he has identified any real problem that requires a systematic solution.  Yes, sure, occasionally people are going to edit articles based on mistaken impressions they got from the refdesks, but they edit them based on mistaken impressions they get from all sorts of places.  I do not believe the refdesks are so serious an offender on this point that they need a separate solution.  The solution is just to keep maintaining the standards in the articles themselves. --Trovatore (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Re: "mistaken impressions they get from all sorts of places" – Uh, but WP itself should obviously not being among them. We need to stop hosting a side project that gets in the way of the actual goals of main project, in multiple ways, including also the drain on editorial productivity and the civility problems that most frequently bite new editors rather than old hands.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * His vote is actually to "move" the Refdesk. In theory this would seem logical - a separate project for everything.  The problem is that within Wikimedia there is a failure to share success or even readership between projects.  For example, there is a whole set of Refdesks at Wikiversity  and I may be the only one here who knows about them -- and I don't remember to look at them. Wnt (talk) 23:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel that the failure to cooperate between Wikimedia projects could be somewhat mitigated with a reference desk project, since it would be likely that answers there would continue to draw heavily on enWiki articles as well as external sources. Alcherin (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So what is the point exactly? You want a separate project to put distance between the refdesks and the 'pedia, but then you argue that it won't really be so much distance?  It's just not clear what your argument even is.  Do you want the projects to interact, or not?  Or somewhat less than they currently do, but still to some extent?  Why will this make anything better?
 * I'll state my position explicitly: Cross-pollination between the refdesks and article space is (mostly) a good thing, and we should not try to reduce it.  When it results in article changes, they are more likely to be improvements than not.  That's just a beneficial side effect; the main point is the other direction.
 * Specifically, a lot of our articles, particularly the technical ones, are difficult to understand. To some extent this is the fault of the authors, but in the main it is because the subjects themselves are simply difficult.  The encyclopedic form imposes strict constraints on how much we can explain and motivate in the context of the article itself; we are not supposed to write textbook-style instructional content.
 * The talk pages of the articles are not appropriate for filling this gap; they are meant to discuss how to improve the articles. So without the refdesks, there's just nothing.  Oh, you can give someone an explanation on a user talk page, but then other people interested in the subject matter likely won't see it.
 * So consider that my response to your challenge above (I think it was you) to address the issue of having the refdesks at a separate project. --Trovatore (talk) 08:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything you're saying. The difference in having the reference desks on a separate WikiProject is that they can have their own administration and moderation team, so refdesk drama no longer has to be dealt with by enwiki admins, especially tricky-to-tackle issues like complaints about hatting questions inapprorpriately or banning regulars. Alcherin (talk) 16:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see &mdash; so your main concern is the workload on the admins? I don't think that requires actually moving domains or making it so intra-wiki links don't work.  If it is a real problem (which I would have to be convinced of; I certainly am not convinced of it as matters stand), then we could add a new userright, "refdesk moderator" or some such, with a lighter nomination process than the absurdity RfA has become.  --Trovatore (talk) 18:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the problems aren't limited to workload on the admins, but also the refdesk drama itself over hatting/BLP violations etc. remaining unresolved and interfering with the operation of the refdesks . Which is where a moderation team to enforce guidelines in place of 'self-appointed sheriffs' would come in handy. Alcherin (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I could see an argument for that. I don't think it requires a separate project, though.  A separate project, I think, would tend to reduce the useful cross-pollination of which I spoke. --Trovatore (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jonathunder's vote indicates at least one admin is tired of constantly being called in to intervene in refdesk drama. Alcherin (talk) 11:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Even if there's no consensus to close the reference desk, we have to do something. Leaving it as it is with no sense of policy or direction regarding inaccurate answers or natter is going to worsen the problem, and we're just going to be back here in a year raising the same issues with more volume. A good deal of person-hours are wasted removing or filtering through the troll questions as well (and attempting to distinguish them from legitimate questions about horses or Nazis or whatnot).--WaltCip (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Case in point - I completely, utterly fail to see how a response like this is relevant at all to the OP, as well as the baffling edit summary of "DNFT".--WaltCip (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the "problem" is "nattering", then there is no problem. If it bothers you, don't read it.  I'm sorry, I don't think that's a legitimate complaint. --Trovatore (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that the IP first asked on 24 October "How much compensation would you expect for someone wrongfully sectioned and "treated" under the Mental Health Act for a year?" and "How do you tell whether a suit is appropriate for any particular function? " and on 25 October "How do I find distributors of computer hardware to open my own store?", one can see that, if not a troll, then this is at least not the kind of editor and questions that are really what an encyclopedia is for, and is basically a waste of time. They were already told at the second question that this is not what the refdesk is intended for, but continued anyway. So the reply you link to is perhaps not relevant to the OP, but how long do you entertain them before such an answer becomes appropriate? Fram (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is ridiculous. "How do I find distributors of computer hardware to open my own store?" Those fielding questions have to assume bad faith until proven otherwise. This is primarily accomplished by engaging in substantive dialogue with the person initiating the thread. There has to be a two-way street of conversation. And it has to be substantive. That in my opinion would go the greatest distance in improving the Reference desks. Bus stop (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The situation in that regard is similar to the article talk pages, as refdesks have similar disclaimers at the top (particularly "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate"). Despite that, there have always been people who posted various irrelevant stuff at talk pages. Does it mean we should also scrap article talk pages because of trolls? No. An appropriately worded question will always get a meaningful answer. Irrelevant stuff goes into oblivion. That's the solution and the baby-bathwater argument is spot on. Brandmeistertalk  11:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of truth to what you say. I didn't mean to imply that the Reference desks were hugely problematic. I happen to think that most participants are on board with the unwritten ground rules of our Reference desks. Much is being made of what amounts to insensitivities to best practice. These are not egregious blemishes that should lead a reasonable person to conclude that the Reference desks should be closed down. But here we are entertaining that idea. There is no harm in airing out these concerns. Social pressure alone is known to influence people. I happen to think that our Reference desks could be made even better. But I'm not deeply troubled by the way they function now. In some ways I'm delighted by aspects of it including its levity. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're asking whether we'll be back here in a year -- of course we will. But that is true whether we have a thriving Refdesk or if you obliterate it or anything in between. Deletionists delete. They won't stop thinking of ways to lord it over people and ruin both the output and the subjective editing experience of Wikipedia. Expect them back ... no matter what. Don't imagine appeasement ever worked. Wnt (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No. No, no, no, no. Just no.


 * Appeasement, Wnt? Have you learned fully nothing from all of this? And do you hear yourself? You talk about the concerns of scores of your fellow community members like you are discussing literal fascists.  Not that any of us can feign surprise, your having been the most consistently entrenched voice resisting any kind of acknowledgement of a need for reform across most of the dozens of discussions on this topic over more recent years. And in each of those conversations, clear predictions by your fellow editors that a failure to self-regulate by the local contributors would result in a much more difficult discussion with the community at large (that is, this discussion).


 * But I'm sorry Wnt, we just cannot afford to keep treating you and Stu with kid gloves on these issues, hoping you will eventually acknowledge that which you clearly do not have the right eyes to see. This time, 30% of RfC respondents voted to delete or at least move the desks. Next time it could be 45%, and the time after that 60%.  We're not going to wait around for that to happen, just to protect the desire of a couple of editors to feel completely unrestrained in the comments they make, I promise you.   Wikipedia is not an open format for unregulated free speech. Wikipedia is not a forum.  If that is what you seek, there are plenty of other discussion communities (even other worthy Wiki-type projects) which will give you that, or at least get you much closer.  Here your participation comes with strings attached, and under a presumption that you will prioritize the needs of the project over your own desire to say whatever you want and have a jolly time doing it.  Nope.  That era is done.  This discussion was clearly never going to result in the demise of the desks, but you can bet the ref desk regulars, past and present, are not going to let it get dragged back here again every year until it does. So I'd get used to the notion of change if I were you.   S n o w  let's rap 07:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if you remember what that policy gobbledygook actually says, if not interpreted with Talmudic creativity. A 'forum' is a general place for saying anything you want - did you catch last night's game, did you hear the latest dumb thing our Esteemed Leader has done?  The refdesk is defined by a purpose, namely answering questions.  Nearly everything on the Refdesk serves this purpose.  So it is not some general forum; it is a well defined project.  The regulars don't actually complain when things are closed down that aren't questions, and quickly give a perfunctory answer pointing to the article and move on when the questions are not difficult enough to be interesting.  Occasionally some trolls ignore the purpose, or people put out a sentence of dubious relevance, but that doesn't make the whole thing a "forum".  No part of Wikipedia is totally focused on its goal, not even the Wikilawyer forums where people focus on making each other feel bad about trying to volunteer or help build the projects.  I should add that you can tell by the current discussion on Jimbo's talk page about the incomprehensibility of math articles  -- or the efforts to damage our coverage of recent events below -- that there is almost as much of a push to intimidate people out of making the article space useful as the refdesk - deletionists delete, period.  If they were to be hired by companies looking to ensure that free competition doesn't cut into their business, they would surely do a good job, but maybe there is just something deeply personally rewarding about keeping articles incomprehensible, leaving questions unanswered, and lambasting anyone who wants to change that. Wnt (talk) 10:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Wonder no more. There is and there isn't. It's one of those powers. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:37, October 27, 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas, all I get is a Google Restricted Page nyah-nyah-we-took-it-you-can't-see-it thing. I mean, most pirates have the decency to share with the whole class. Wnt (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Same. Oddly appropriate, given that the title of the book is Censorship and Silencing. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 04:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Take a bit of computing that was devised in 1973 - say twenty years after the start of computer science - the median of medians algorithm. How many readers can work though it easily? Why do you expect mathematics with its much longer history to be easy to explain and grasp? Often the best that can be done for an article is to make it accessible to someone who might be in a position to tackle the topic properly in six months time. Even Euclid more than two thousand years ago is supposed to have said to Ptolemy that 'there is no royal road to geometry'. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Scores till now (e&oe)
 * Support = 55
 * Oppose = 103 (including "reform (but don't close)" !votes)...  Lourdes  12:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Sister project?
Before this is closed fairly clearly as non-consensus to shut down the ref desk, would it be helpful to tack on a survey/specific discussion regarding moving it to a sister project? Looks like there's about a half dozen or so of us that have come out and said the "s-word", and presumably, this may satisfy many of those calling for the desk to be shut down, as well as many of those calling for fundamental reforms. Perhaps even many of those vehemently in favor of keeping. But I'll admit that I have no appreciation whatsoever of what the technical implementation would entail, and I'm ambivalent about whether this would be a good time to have that discussion, or whether it might be better put off for a separate thread entirely. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   16:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to keep it separate for organization's sake. While related, it's an entirely different question. Framing it will be tricky and might benefit from a little pre-discussion here. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a sister project be a WMF initiative by definition? If so, shouldn't the discussion be at WMF level? &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I really don't know, which is why I asked.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering that this discussion was primarily to discuss whether or not the Reference desks should be closed, a separate discussion on whether or not to make it its on Wikimedia project probably warrants a separate discussion; maybe on Meta? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the issue, but the first step would be to decide here whether we actually want to do this. The second step would be to open the proposal at Meta:New_project_process. Alsee (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that the notion of a separate project is being proposed solely by individuals who have no interest in actually launching or developing that project themselves, which is not how that process works... The WMF movement does not create new projects just to satisfy the organizational whims of individuals who are not interested in working on developing the project. I don't mean to be curt here--I know these proposals are made in good faith and that some view them as a reasonable middle ground alternative--but these community members by and large seem to have not thought this notion out very thoroughly. Anyone is free to propose a new space on meta, but I guarantee that the community members there, well-versed in the actual amount and complexity of the labour involved in launching a new project and domain, are going to be asking a lot of pragmatic questions which the "sister project" proponents have thus far not even recognized above, let alone begun to address. Who is going to provide the technical expertise and shepherd this through the WMF process, when most of those who actually are interested in volunteering their time at the desks A) don't want or don't see the need for the move and B) mostly don't have the requisite skills? Until such time as more individuals with actual knowledge/experience in this area of project oversight join the ranks of those calling for a new project, I'm calling this for the pie-in-the-sky notion that it is, and I don't recommend any launch such a discussion until they've really researched and thought this thing through.

What's more, I'm also pretty sure that the community discussion above already establishes that very few editors want this sister project to begin with; even if you assume that every single "delete project" !vote above would change to a "move project" !vote, they are still greatly outnumbered by those community members above who did not endorse such an approach but rather !voted to keep the project as it is (hopefully with some reform though, in my opinion). I question the value of hosting a discussion with a central question which seems to have a WP:SNOW conclusion, based on the perspectives already shared here.  S n o w  let's rap 05:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Snow Rise. I !voted to Delete the Reference Desks, not to create a sister project.  My !vote, which is in a minority, is based on my conclusion that we don't have a workable concept of what the "reform" or "sister project" should be.  We still don't.  We just are choosing to keep the mess here rather than moving it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * "Comment There's a really practical reason to keep the ref desk. It helps keeps the Q & A off the article talk pages. DGG' ( talk ) 06:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Time to close?
The discussion has run for a month now, and prior to today's previous edit, there had been no new discussion in days. It seems like this discussion has run its natural course. Time to close? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the case. IMHO, the consensus appears to be "Keep it, but something should be done" -- with "something" being defined as one of the following: (1) ban certain individuals from that part of Wikipedia; (2) either enforce the general Wikipedia rules there, or establish some special ones for it; & (3) spin it off as its own project. And I write this summary as someone who honestly doesn't care if the Reference Desk stays or goes. (I've been following this discussion out of idle curiosity.) The easiest to accomplish should be (1), but if there are disruptive individuals at the Reference Desk & WP:AN/I is unable to deal with them, it's not clear how to proceed from there. -- llywrch (talk) 23:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there's no consensus that something should be done. There are a lot of people who have expressed that opinion, but not a consensus.  --Trovatore (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * At the very least, there doesn't seem to be consensus to close the reference desks; what happens next is probably up in the air, but for now at least it seems that the reference desks aren't going away. Apparently the discussion is supposed to continue until December 1, but considering there's barely been any discussion in more than a week, and the fact that vote-wise it's more or less 2:1 against closing the reference desks, I'm not sure if keeping this discussion open until December 1 will help much. Perhaps a request for closure is in order? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the one I filed on November 9 insufficient? -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware that one had already been filed. Thanks Jayron32. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

, I also wasn't aware that you had filed that request. My comment above was an attempt to prod this discussion towards some kind of consensus, based on a disinterested read of the discussion. It does appear that discussion has come to a standstill on the issue: since around 20 October, discussion of the issue itself has stopped while people have expressed their support or opposition to it. (Saying you are "for" or "against" really isn't engaging others; it's just taking a position.) And a simple counting of noses shows a consensus opposed to closing the Reference Desk, as Lordes points out, 108 to 55. That much is certain.

However, I believe has misread a related issue here. If one reads the opinions opposed to this issue, 36 of them also admit that there is a problem there, counting those that mention banning people, or use language such as "throwing the baby out with the bath water" -- this saying always implies there is a problem, although its point is that the problem needs to be handled with at least some finesse. Add those 36 to the number supporting this proposal, & a majority who participated in this RfC indicate there is some kind of problem here that needs to be fixed.

There have been three proposed solutions; & it is possible that there is a fourth, not yet mentioned. Now that closing the Reference Desk is no longer a possibility, I would expect people interested in this matter to pursue these. Either that, or this will prove one of those matters of chronic complaints & demands for reform like WP:AfD.

Having written all this, I don't see anything further honestly needs to be said about this matter here. If that is the case, either another uninvolved Admin can use my summary here to close this discussion, or I can in the next 24 hours if that proves to be the case. -- llywrch (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there is no warrant to mention any change whatsoever in the close. It was not proposed in the RFC, and the ideas are all over the place.  The close should be a clean "there is a consensus not to close the refdesks", and that's it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else have a comment on my proposed summary of this discussion? -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not "anyone else", but I'd like to elaborate a little, if you'll indulge me.
 * Almost everyone will almost always agree that any given thing can be done better. Even I am happy to agree that there are possible changes to the refdesks that would be an improvement.
 * But the respondents don't agree, in any way that can be remotely considered "consensus", on any particular change that they would find an improvement. Or indeed, even on what the problem is that needs to be solved.  Given that, I think it's an illusion to find a consensus that "something" should be done, just by adding them up, when they may not agree on which somethings are actually better than doing nothing.  --Trovatore (talk) 11:35, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging problems is not the same as calling for changes. This world is not perfect, but it may be the best of all possible worlds. All of Wikipedia has trolls, vandals, and even (the horror) sometimes grammatical and orthographical errors. But it still is a net positive influence. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:21, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the next step is a second RfC asking for input on which of the various proposals above has the greatest support? If I could add another proposal, maybe have the responders agree to try to add material directly addressing the question raised somewhere in articles space, either in an overview article or an article on a book or something like that. John Carter (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be an agreed problem, before you start an RfC about the solution? I don't see that any consensus has been shown on what the supposed problem is. --Trovatore (talk) 02:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear, from both the large number of votes to close the RD entirely and the large number of votes that oppose closing but favor reform of one kind or another, that there is broad agreement that the RD is problematic -- it is at least as strong as the consensus not to close the RD. I'm not sure what purpose is served by pretending otherwise.  Incidentally, the decision to ban one problematic editor has so far had a clearly positive effect on the RD environment; probably there are a handful more who could go, as well, and the result might be tolerable.  --JBL (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I still haven't seen any agreement on a particular problem. --Trovatore (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Even for the proposition that "there's a problem even if we don't agree on what it is" -- as strong a consensus as not to close? You can't be serious.  That's absurd.  It's close to 2:1 against closing.  Nowhere near that many thought there was a serious problem. --Trovatore (talk) 02:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * While the consensus seems to be against closing (which was the original question of this RfC), it is clear that even among opposers, many acknowledge that there are problems with the Reference desks and believe that something should be done (what that could be may be a topic for another RfC). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to say it, but I think that means this discussion should be closed, and a "What Should be done with the RefDesks" discussion and/or proposal is needed.
 * My personal suggestion : If someone proposes a refdesk reform, don't just focus on what isn't allowed, also draw a bright line around what is allowed. ApLundell (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Can we put this discussion out of its misery already? It's already December 3 in parts of the world, when the plan was to close this two days ago. There's been little discussion in almost a month. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At WP:AN/RFC, has started discussions as of yesterday to begin to think about maybe asking someone to possibly consider helping close the discussion.  It's a start.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 21:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)