User talk:SCZenz/Reference desk comments

advocacy of opinion

"advocacy of opinion" isn't a bad thing, it can help OPs get an idea of how people "in the know" think about controversial topics. --froth^{T C} 05:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And again, many questions, in the Humanities particularly, call for opinion, such as "what are examples of symbolism used in ...". Such questions are entirely legitimate. StuRat 06:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see: m:Foundation issues, m:NPOV is our guiding principle, why should this not apply to the reference desk?EricR 16:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV does apply, by presenting all points of view and letting the reader pick and choose those which apply in their case. NPOV does not mean that a single "correct" answer must be given. Many Wikipedia articles, for example, have "support" and "criticisms" sections. StuRat 17:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We're discussing "advocacy of opinion", an issue the meta page addresses. Do you disagree that questions on the reference desk should be answered "not by advancing or detracting particular points of view on any given subject, but by trying to present a fair, neutral description of the facts", in other words w/o advocacy?EricR 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The goal should be that the sum total of the responses are balanced, but that doesn't mean each individual response must be balanced. For example, when asked "which software product do you recommend for X", we can certainly stand to have different recommendations/opinions listed. StuRat 17:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

legal/medical

I disagree. We make it clear that wikipedia makes no guarantee about factual accuracy, and users understand this to be a liability concern. However contributors do have some (however limited) knowledge about medicine and law, and there's no reason not to dispense it with the warning. And of course in cases regarding more serious issues like emergencies, dosages, or diagnosises it would be appropriate to admit that you could be wrong and refuse to answer at all. "No legal or medical advice at all" is too broad though --froth^{T C} 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, with the advice to "go see a doctor immediately" being an example of "medical advice" that can't possibly be harmful, or generate a lawsuit, and which might actually save a life. StuRat 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)