Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/howtoask/archive1

I took the IRC line out of this header, IRC isn't Wikipedia and it's probably not the best pubic face or ambassador for it. The participants aren't there for their research skills or their interest in answering general reference desk questions. RxS 16:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it's not something the vast majority of or users even know anything about. RxS 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd also submit that sending editors to irc, where their IP's are public by default, without making that clear, is a bad idea. Someone said irc isnt wikipedia isnt irc. In which case, wikipedia should maintain separation from irc, or enact some procedure guidelines and policies to regulate behavior there. Lsi john 16:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the removal. We have a hard enough time trying to get people to provide good answers on the wiki.  The last thing we need is a bunch of people trying to do it in some chat room. Friday (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Friday, if I were into conspiracy theories, I would have said that there have been efforts to drain new blood from Wikipedia and to pump it into chatrooms instead. Reference desk is a good way of recruiting fresh volunteers to Wikipedia. But chatrooms need more chatters as well, don't they? --Ghirla-трёп- 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could be, I dunno. I don't really care why people want to advertise chat rooms by linking to them from Wikipedia, all I really care about is that they don't do it.  Friday (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think though that the reasons mentioned above (by several editors) are compelling enough without needing conspiracy theories. RxS 16:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say give it a chance. The IRC channel #wikipedia-en-help (named #wikipedia-bootcamp until recently) has worked as a nice supplement to the help desk and new contributors' help page so perhaps this could do the same for the reference desk? --KFP (talk | contribs) 16:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with KFP. #wikipedia-en-help has been around for years, and nobody complained.  Plus, there's the fact that without a mention of the IRC channel, it's useless.  There's also the fact that when the database is locked, it shows a link to #wikipedia.  I also think that the people who are objecting have not tried to IRC yet. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 16:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree that a refernece to the channel here would be a good idea as without users the channel is useless. GDonato (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We know almost nothing at all about this channel, only that it is intended as a supplement to the desk. How does it benefit the desk and project? Who runs the place? What are the standards for use of the channel? Will questions be asked and answered there and if so how does that help us? Why should we advertise this channel without having any of these questions answered?&mdash;eric 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are good questions. If someone is really proposing moving Wikipedia functionality to some other place, I'd want to hear why.  IRC seems particularly ill-suited to providing reference desk functionality - only people who happened to be in the channel at the time will ever have a way to see a question someone asked.  Friday (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IRC seems particularly ill-suited to providing help desk functionality - only people who happened to be in the channel at the time will ever have a way to see a question someone asked. That's your logic, which as it stands now, would result in a questioning of #wikipedia-en-help as well. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 18:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And just to be clear, IRC is not Wikipedia. This doesn't make any more sense then if I linked a Yahoo group or someone's Wiki forum. In addition, it's not used by very many Internet users and it takes a certain amont of technical ability to use it safely, we shouldn't be pointing users in that direction. As to #wikipedia-en-help, that's as much of a problem. None of those channels should be linked for use by newcomers. RxS 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, the help desk is used by newcomers. In fact, the newcomer stuff is much like a non sequitur; newcomers go to wherever they can seek the most help.  In regards to not many people use IRC, I suggest you visit #wikipedia and look at how many people use it.  I can tell you right now, over 200 people use it. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 18:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What percentage do you think 200 users is of all our visitors and new editors. Rounded off, zero. And some may go there for help but it's not Wikipedia no matter how many people use it. There's plenty of moderated help here for new users, and a lot more people available to help at any one time...RxS 18:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's actually a good 25% on #wikipedia at one time. And it is a supplement to Wikipedia.  I'm not implying it is definitive, just a supplement. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 18:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now the channel is not supposed to be a malicious, secretive clubhouse as described at User:Friday/OOB. Just an idea to expand the functionality of the reference desk into real time discussion, which is sometimes a better way to do things. I don't know if it will/would work but no harm in trying, I guess? --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody's saying don't do what you want in some chat room. We're just saying there's no reason to advertise it here.  Friday (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why is #wikipedia advertised when the database is locked? ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 19:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I didn't do it. We may or may not be able to lose existing mentions of IRC, but we ought to at least be able to keep it from spreading.  Friday (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And that's right, I'm not saying shut them down. I'm just saying that they don't belong linked from Wikipedia. And I'm only talking about user help, reference desk help and so on. There's at least a debatable need for the admin channel (though some would say that's as bad as any) but we shouldn't be sending new users and the general public to Wikipedia resources outside of Wikipedia. RxS 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well does a link to #wikipedia belong in an edit page that says the database is locked? As far as I know, there is no policy or guideline stating that IRC links do not belong in Wikipedia.  Essays do not count. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 19:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not discussing, here on this page, every mention of IRC everywhere in Wikipedia. We're discussing whether it's useful to point people to IRC in the "how to ask a question at the reference desk" header. Friday (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and to add: I'm not sure why we'd need that policy any more then we'd need a policy saying you can't point new users and users that need help or reference desk questions to some Yahoo group...IRC isn't Wikipedia. And as far as database locks, I'm not sure why we'd want to point people to #wikipedia during technical problems for the exact same reasons but that's another issue. RxS 19:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, it is very useful to also have a reference to a supplement to the normal, on-wiki Reference desk, should newcomers not want/have to wait long periods of time for an answer. Newcomers are sometimes impatient.
 * As with a database lock or other technical error, users like us will want to hear what's going on, as demonstrated before on various channels. ( [ →] zel zany  - fish) 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I just visited the #wikipedia-desk channel that had been mentioned in the link, and I was the only person in it. So until such a time as a "reference desk" channel actually exists, what is there to talk about?  Once such a channel really exists, I guess we could talk about linking to it from here, but I'd still probably be against it.  This page is for telling people how to ask questions at the Wikipedia reference desk.  We don't have to also document everything that exists, anywhere on the internet. Friday (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You've connected the wrong way. This should work. ( [ →] zel  zany  - fish) 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what I did. And I just did it again.  Same thing.  I suppose it's possible the client isn't working on my machine.  I saw a @ next to my username- that means channel op, right?  Only way I'd be an op is by going into a channel that didn't already exist, right?  I also tried changing the channel name to #wikipedia-nosuchdesk and got the same results.  It works with the new link. Friday (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Try the link again, there was a mistake in the link. GDonato (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. I did notice I couldn't type anything.  Maybe the java applet doesn't work on firefox for mac (altho macs have good Java support these days) or maybe I just didn't know what I was doing.  Friday (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How useful it is isn't the point. I feel like I'm repeating myself, maybe I'm not commenting clearly, but the point is that IRC is just a collection of chat rooms without any official connection to Wikipedia. They have every right to exist, but we shouldn't be linking to them. They are not a good public face for Wikipedia (I've been in them), the participants are not selected for their research skills nor for their interest in research (or public relations skills for that matter). There are security issues that new users wouldn't be aware of and IRC as a chat technology is legacy anyway, almost no one uses it. Certainly a new user coming along and reading the help/research sections almost certainly would never have used IRC. There are many more potential eyes on the help/research sections themselves and they are a part of Wikipedia. I think that pretty much sums it up. RxS 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the usefulness of such a thing is highly questionable. Friday (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm late to the discussion, but linking to resources on the internet is exactly what we should do. We do it all the time, sending editors to other parts of the internet, totally off Wikimedia servers. Never has it been said that we only tell people about what happens on Wiki. There is no good reason to discourage a possibly useful tool such as this for the reasons being presented here. I'm not sure where this misconception is coming from. -- Ned Scott 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If people were linking to reliable sources to answer questions, I absolutely agree. But linking to some chat room?  Why?  It's not at all a useful tool for providing ref desk functionality.  Friday (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's faster and it's the same people there as at the main RefDesk. There is no reason why it is not as good as the main RefDesk. GDonato (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've listed all the reasons it's not as good as the Reference Desk above. RxS 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to criticisms:
 * Helpers not picked for their research skills (or interests) This is not a valid criticism as it applies to WP:REFDESK, WP:NCHP and WP:HELPDESK on-wiki
 * The best that could be said is that people in the channel are self selected for their interest. But that doesn't mean that they have the skills to help the general public in a non-Wikipedia environment. There are many more eyes on the reference desk itself to make sure no newbie biting is going on and to make sure the communication is conducted in as professional way as possible, not to mention as accurate as possible. It's a criticism that applies to the other pages you mention as well, but we're talking about the Reference Desk at the moment.
 * People helping at the ref desk do not necessarily have the skills either, you say there are people ensuring there is no newbie biting and there is no reason to suspect that IRC would be any different, GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IPs shown by default This is true but not a major concern as IPs are not personally identifiable, users can use IRC cloaks or proxies and we could warn users of this next to the link or in the topic on IRC.
 * If it is true, then it is a major concern. The general public knows nothing about IRC cloaks or proxies. IP addresses can provide personally identifiable information in some cases (think Brian Chase). And a warning on the topic would be a little late.
 * A warning next to the link and a link to the IRC Tutorial? GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lack of information about what this actually is. The purpose of the channel is to be a supplement to the reference desk located in an environment which allows for real-time responses from helpful volunteers. Nobody would run the channel as such but there would be operators to ensure there was no spamming, personal attacks etc. It helps by providing users with answers to their general knowledge questions.
 * I think you hit the nail on the head by saying no one would run the channel...and there's no oversight from general Wikipedia users to make sure any standards are kept. The Wikipedia related channels I've been in have been pretty poisonous at times.
 * No-one runs Wikipedia as such, it's not like the Foundation deals with day-to-day policy enforcement etc. Does that make wiki bad? No. If IRC =/= wiki, then a PR disaster would not affect Wikipedia anyway. GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IRC =/= wiki This is true and there is no suggestion of replacing the reference desk just to provide users with an optional, by-the-way supplement. Users may be interested in this service and if so they would appreciate a link to it.
 * IRC is not Wikipedia as you say, and has no more place on a reference/help page then any Yahoo group or Wiki page someone setup.
 * Wikimedia documents IRC, see IRC and related, unlike Yahoo. IRC has Wikimedia's approval in a way (although not officially) GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IRC legacy, unused I disagree because at the time of writing there are 260 users in #wikipedia and 90 in #-en. IRC related to Wikipedia is used by many people.
 * IRC related to Wikipedia is used by many people who already are related/familiar with Wikipedia. The number of IRC users among the general public that actually use Wikipedia is vanishingly small. 260 users are basically none compared to the amount of traffic Wikipedia experiences at any moment.
 * 260 is still a significant number of people- so although IRC traffic will not equal WP traffic, that is not a reason to ignore it. GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If I have not addressed one of your criticisms please tell me. GDonato (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If people want a more helpful Reference Desk, then they should be recruiting more Wikipedia editors to participate. And if people are interested in helping out at the Reference desk and sitting in an IRC channel, why can't they watch the reference desk and answer questions there instead of waiting for folks to come into a chat room? They can answer questions on a Wikipedia page they are watching more efficiently and with more input then on IRC. And, those answers can be added to or corrected by other editors all across Wikipedia. RxS 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why have one question on wiki and IRC? That's inefficient. Although people may respond further on-wiki, it is likely not what the original user was actually wanting. GDonato (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might have misunderstood my point, I'm saying that if someone has time to sit in an IRC channel, they have time to watch the reference desk. The person with a question is already on Wikipedia, the person willing to answer questions is already on Wikipedia, why are we wanting to take it off Wikipedia? RxS 20:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To allow for a real-time collaborative research environment. IRC allows users to bounce ideas of eachother in a way wiki can't. GDonato (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages of IRC as a reference desk tool
This has already been said, but perhaps it's worth repeating. In a chat room, you're either going to get an answer right away or not answer at all. There's no way for someone to review questions asked earlier that day and provide answers. If we limit the ref desk to questions which get answered right away, far fewer questions will get answered. So I think the disadvantage of IRC as a ref desk tool is pretty clear. What were the advantages again? Friday (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not quite valid as clients will show hours of text behind the current conversation. I do not believe questions will go unanswered. GDonato (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The one advantage I suppose people could mention is speed. However in my experience, too much emphasis on speed is probably more harmful than helpful, for Wikipedian purposes. It's better to get it right than to get it fast, and we're never trying to scoop anyone. The wiki is capable of letting people answer right away, as is IRC. It's also capable of letting people answer later, which is where IRC falls down. Friday (talk) 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * IRC does not necessarily fall down on this, especially on quieter channels, see my comment above ;-) GDonato (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, if someone was in the channel the whole time, and chooses to scroll back, sure, they can see old stuff. This seems quite inconvenient compared with, say, watchlisting a page. Here's what I'm getting at- if you're going to suggest fragmenting the ref desk this way, I want to see some very compelling advantages of the new medium.  So far all I see are disadvantages.  You sound like someone arguing why a heavy wrench can be used to drive nails, while ignoring the readily available hammer.  We should pick the best tool for the job.   Friday (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, one choice, I have a general knowledge question, IRC or wiki? Hmm... wiki, yes, but why limit ourselves to one choice the channel is set-up already and I am sure users with a quick question would prefer a quick, real-time response. Also, I think that many questions asked on-wiki are left then ignored by the questioner, on IRC this is less likely to happen. It also allows for greater discussion over answers. Wiki is one-answer in nature, in the questions that have been asked so far the users have been able to follow-up their original question until they get the best answer they are really looking for. GDonato (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ref desk questions on the wiki quite often get more than one answer. The things you're suggesting can happen in IRC can also easily happen on the wiki, unless I'm missing something.  Friday (talk) 18:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * More then one answer for sure plus there is the option of corrections and additions at the reference desk. On IRC once the exchange is done, it's done...it's not available for other users to review or for the original user to post a followup. RxS 18:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The user originally asking the question does not very often post a follow-up on wiki. On IRC: UserA asks, B responds, A asks further, B responds, A asks a related question, B answers, C provides more details, A is satisified. This is more friendly and leaves the customer much happier. GDonato (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that if what is desired is having a chat, IRC is probably better than the wiki. I doubt many people will dispute this.  But this is the reference desk, not the chat desk.  Friday (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a chat- just a conversation between users sharing knowledge which may involve several follow-ups and requests for clarification- learning more. GDonato (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

How we include a link to allow users to see the channel and you can come in and provide your thoughts to see how it works in practice? GDonato (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * OMG! What a phreaking stupid proposal! It's just a ludicrous way to run things - what you say about instant response can only work if there are people actually logged into the IRC channel and actively watching it.  If they are actively doing that then they can just as effectively give those responses in a Wiki format.  Please tell me why this instant back-and-forth that you just described can't happen on the present system?  (I'll tell you why - it's because there aren't people continually watching it - just as there won't be enough people continually watching the IRC line).  Look back through the last 24 hours.  How many different people actually answered questions on - say - the science desk?  The answer is 9 (well, 11 if you count two inane/useless answers) - so the Science desk is manned by about 10 people.  So do you really think there will be anything even close to 24 hour coverage on the IRC line?  Of course not...no chance with just 9 people.  And even if there were - what is the probability that the TWO people who were able to answer the question on 'Differential Gear' would have happened to be online when that question was asked?   The answer is that there might MAYBE be a 10% chance.  So in that - much more likely 90% scenario, the IRC situation is: UserA asks a question.  Nobody responds because (fairly likely) nobody is online right now - or (extremely likely) neither of the two people who could answer it effectively are online right now.   So UserA sits there for 10 minutes.  Nobody responds - or nobody responds usefully - or the usual background chatter that infects every IRC line simply streams on regardless.  They give up.  Maybe (although I think it's unlikely), a little later someone wakes up on IRC and sees the question sitting there and responds to it - but it's too late.  If by some chance UserA comes back later, then 30 minutes of the typical inane babble that fills IRC channels will likely have scrolled both question and answer off the top of the history.  Contrast that with the present scheme:  They ask a question - maybe they get an immediate answer - maybe they don't - but if they come back the next day, the answer is there with almost 100% certainty.  Because questions hang around for longer - there is a better chance that a bad answer will get fixed.  If someone asks on IRC and happens to get one of the handful of idiots we have here - they'll get a misleading answer or a funny answer - but not the right answer.  However, that's all they'll see and they'll either go away ill-informed or with a feeling that this service is junk.  Many answers require a considerable amount of research - again, IRC sucks for that because the questioner will long ago have gone away by the time I've gotten a good answer together.  It's a reference desk - not a 'phone a friend' feature for some quiz show.  It's a research desk for chrissakes - we're supposed to research the questions - not just come up with a flip off-the-cuff reply.  Finally - if you truly, deeply believe this is useful - you don't need Wikipedia in order to set up your service.  Find an IRC service (they are everywhere) - set it up and just do it.  The help desk in it's present form is a part of Wikipedia because it's run like Wikipedia - with persistant text, archiving, version control, traceability, vandal-blocking, editing, hyperlinks, multimedia, etc.  All of that goes away with IRC. SteveBaker 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't call peoples' proposals stupid. There has always been someone logged on to IRC desk, afaik. Perhaps they can't answer the question immediately themselves but there is also the opportuinity for colaborative research in real-time. I do not believe that users of the service so far have had flip off-the-cuff answers. IRC does allow for the things you said except multimedia- but how does that come up in an answer. Realisticly, users will be told that they may have to wait for an answer, if an answer is not forthcoming then we may help them research further. Nobody on the channel so far has had their question ignored, that I can guarantee. GDonato (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe calling it stupid wasn't nice, but I have to agree it's a rather half-baked idea. IRC has a number of disadvantages, compared to the wiki, for providing reference desk functionality.  Before we go trying to send half the questioners off to some chat room, it's completely appropriate to look at possible advantages and disadvantages of the new medium.  The only advantage I can see is that if lots of back-and-forth is required, IRC makes this quicker and easier than the wiki.  This one little advantage is not nearly enough to offset the other various disadvantages, in my opinion.  Also, as Steve pointed out- you can go start up a reference desk chat room all on your own, no cooperation required from Wikipedia.  So let's keep separate things separate.  I see no need to link to some chat room from the "how to ask a question" page.   This page is about the Wikipedia reference desk, not any and every reference desk anyone in the world chooses to set up.  Friday (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)