Wikiversity talk:Help desk

From Wikiversity

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Pakistan

Why we people do not have the talk on help desk to get some info from each other. So as my question to others is "Can somebody help me in finding tye free E Resources of Law of Pakistan?" my email address is "sajjadhussainz@gmail.com"

I repeated this question at Wikipedia. Here is a start: w:Media laws of Pakistan (from Category:Pakistani law). --JWSchmidt 12:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

I can't help but feel that this help desk is really redundant with that at Wikipedia. Why have both? The Jade Knight 05:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could institute a policy of "We do help with homework, just we don't give the exact answer" or there abouts. This might be the future site of an online tutoring section--Rayc 23:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, the main purpose of this page should be to encourage people to participate in Wikiversity. We can help people figure out how to find the answers to their questions. --JWSchmidt 00:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] subject help desks

There is now an astronomy help desk at Topic:Astronomy/Help desk and I know of at least one other at School of Mathematics Help Desk. Perhaps we should start a page to list these to better coordinate questions?--mikeu 16:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe at least we can start adding all such pages to Category:Help desks (though not all such pages have "Help" and/or "desk" in the title). Then we need to work on Wikiversity:Questions... Cormaggio beep 17:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've added all the Help Desks I found under Category:Help Desks to the header, how does it look ? StuRat 07:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Reference Desk

On the Wikipedia Reference Desks talk page, there is a great discussion going on about whether they should answer all kinds of questions placed there. It's hard to explain the debate, but you could go there and see for yourselves. I suggested that they send here the questions that don't fit there. I want to know whether this would be good for this Help Desk. (My nick on Wikipedia is A.Z.) A.z. 17:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in particular there are many subjective and opinion questions there which some find objectionable. I would like to set up a formal mechanism for redirecting such questions here, as long as that's OK with everyone here. I would also be willing to answer many of the questions sent here. This might cause your number of questions to grow dramatically, as the Wikipedia Ref Desk gets quite a few subjective questions. It might also make sense to direct strictly factual questions there, since those are answered rather well at the Wikipedia Ref Desk, at present. StuRat 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the very late reply to this thread. I did read this back in April, but at a busy time for me. If I had taken time to comment I would only have said, "go for it". I sometimes participate at the Wikipedia reference desks, particularly for science, but until this month I had never imagined that there was so much "drama" surrounding the rules for reference desk editing. I think that all Wikiversity editors should respect the spirit of Wikiversity:Cite sources when replying to help desk questions. It makes sense to me that the help desk will probably eventually start to gain momentum by specializing in questions that are not suited for the Wikipedia reference desk. I hope the Wikiversity community can be clever about finding ways to harness enthusiasms for discussing topics and directing that enthusiasm towards full compatibility with the educational mission of Wikiversity. Spirited discussion, including opinion, is a good starting point for exploring a topic. At Wikiversity, we should be able to move past mere opinion into scholarly research and analysis. I think it is a serious problem that so many Wikipedians either do not know that Wikiversity exists, do not understand what Wikiversity is, or just do not support the existence of Wikiversity. Such Wikipedians are always going to make difficulties for Wikiversity and Wikiversity participants who try to make links from Wikipedia to Wikiversity. I'm thinking that Wikiversity should have a learning project where we can study this problem, and at the very least keep track of efforts at Wikipedia to prevent Wikiversity participants from linking Wikipedia pages to Wikiversity pages. We have Wikiversity and Wikipedia services as a starting point, and it might make sense to think in terms of a requirement that Wikiversity have well developed pages before trying to make links to them from Wikipedia. In the case of the help desk, this might mean having a special subpage (Wikiversity:Help desk/Wikipedia links?) that explains why Wikipedians should allow links from the Wikipedia reference desk to the Wikiversity help desk. --JWSchmidt 17:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't perceive there to be a "problem" on Wikipedia, where people oppose linking to Wikiversity - except for the recent medical advice stuff. Still, I would look at it from the other side, and address the question of why would people want to link to Wikiversity? Having well-developed, or simply well-structured and defined pages/projects would be a good reason to do so, I agree. Cormaggio talk 22:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
To be specific, the problem I perceive at Wikipedia is when links to Wikimedia sister projects are treated like external links. Wikipedia generally enforces fairly strict rules for external links....not too many and just select the best ones. There is another long-standing tradition of allowing internal links to any relevant pages, even if they are just stubs.....that is how the stubs get attention and grow. Links to sister projects should not be treated like external links. Wikipedians should recognize the global goal of the Wikimedia Foundation and help the sister projects grow by allowing links to them, even if the linked pages are not the greatest. --JWSchmidt 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would tend to suggest that Wikipedians will tend to support treating links to fellow Wikimedia projects – Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Wiktionary, etc. – as internal links where those links tend to be consistent with Wikipedia policies and goals. On the Reference Desk at Wikipedia, our attitude towards links to Wikiversity is coloured by the practice of using such links to attempt to game Wikipedia's internal rules. I doubt many editors have any objection to links which encourage freewheeling philosophical or historical discussion on your Help Desk here. Speaking for myself, I think it's healthy and beneficial for learners of all ages and backgrounds to have the opportunity to test and present their ideas in a welcoming and safe environment.
However, there are strong objections and concerns surrounding the links that a few editors have made to some potentially very poor and very dangerous medical advice. (The canonical example is Wikiversity:Help desk#Intracranial pressure. It is also worth bearing in mind that sometimes incorrect advice isn't so obviously questionable.) The links are created to circumvent some very specific Wikipedia policy, which is troubling. The advice offered is from amateurs, and is not vetted by any professional, and probably not reviewed even by very many nonprofessionals, and some of it is downright scary. In general, Wikipedia tries to encourage links to sources that are reputable, respected, accurate, and peer-reviewed or fact-checked. On the issue of offering medical advice (diagnoses, prognoses, or suggested treatment options) Wikiversity just doesn't come anywhere close to those standards.
There's a world of difference between "I was told Hitler was the most evil person in history; is this true?" and "I was told my intracranial pressure was elevated; what should I do?". The relative amounts and types of harm that may result from amateurs spouting off their best guesses to those questions seems fairly obvious. Consequently, I expect that editors at Wikipedia will continue to apply common sense to the sorts of interproject links that they allow or encourage—trying to create hard-and-fast bright line rules like "All inter-project links are good (or bad), and should be treated as internal (or external) links" is asking for trouble. TenOfAllTrades 01:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades: First, I'd like to see the definition of "medical advice" that you are applying. Second, Wikiversity does not invite participants to either ask for medical advice or provide medical advice. Wikiversity is still working out a way to work with participants who do ask for medical advice or provide medical advice.....see Medical advice tutorial and Medical practice and the law. Third, I have not been able to get too concerned about the "canonical example" you mentioned. "My EEG revealed a slightly high intracranial pressure. However IMHO after downing the pressure to normal I will a bit more passive and slow. Does it make much sense?" This "question" makes no sense to me and is not even coherent English. I doubt if this person was actually subjected to EEG with a resulting diagnosis of "slightly high intracranial pressure". The person asking the question seems to be asking if slightly reducing intracranial pressure will make them more "more passive and slow". This sounds like a joke about ancient theories saying the pressure of "psychic pneuma" produce bodily motion. I cannot see how the reply from "StuRat" constitutes medical advice. I hope Wikiversity can develop learning resources that will educate people about why Wikimedia projects do not want participants to ask for medical advice or provide medical advice. If Wikipedia sends such people to Wikiversity we can try clue them in to what a wiki website is and what they should and should not expect to get from one. --JWSchmidt 03:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I read the advice offered,
"I believe that doctors, upon finding something "abnormal" (outside the typical range), often decide, incorrectly, that they need to correct it. If this condition has been with you all your life, your body may have adapted to it and may actually function better with that pressure. It may adjust to the new pressure, or it may not, only time will tell."
as implying that no medical intervention was necessary, and further suggesting that the patient shouldn't listen to his doctor's treatment recommendations. There are several problems with the answer to this question (the following list may not be exhaustive).
  • The original poster (OP) apparently doesn't have any understanding of what intracranial pressure is, or what it means. No effort was made in the response to clarify this.
  • As you've noted, the original poster has made errors of English and/or medical terminology. Offering medical advice to someone who hasn't even clearly conveyed their case information is a bad idea.
  • The answer discourages the OP from trusting all physicians. While informed consent, patient education, second opinions, etc. are all valuable and important parts of the practice of medicine, this is a pretty irresponsible statement coming from a random individual on the internet.
  • The answer also demonstrates no particular knowledge about intracranial pressure or why it might be elevated.
  • The answer discourages the OP from seeking addition, professional, competent advice—"only time will tell".
  • The answer implicitly supports the OP's hypothesis (that he will be more passive and slow with a normal intracranial pressure) with the statement "your body may have adapted to it and may actually function better with that pressure". This is, flatly, nonsense.
I admit that I hadn't considered that the question might have been a joke; I was working under the assumption that the OP was just genuinely confused, or was not writing in his own first language, or possibly (and this is a really scary case) was a minor.
In answer to your first question, for the purposes of Wikipedia we define medical advice as offering any comment that can reasonably be interpreted as a diagnosis, prognosis, or recommended course of treatment; see w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice. You're welcome to define it differently on Wikiversity, of course. I can't comment on whether or not StuRat's answer would constitute the Practice of Medicine from a legal standpoint; I'm not a lawyer, nor am I likely to be familiar with the relevant law, nor do I know how one would approach the jurisdictional mess that would attach to such a case. However, if the question were a legitimate one, asked seriously by a rather ill-informed person, consider the potential harm that could arise from following the advice given here (implicitly and explicitly). TenOfAllTrades 04:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First, I think anyone describing personal health or medical test results (even if fictitious) at a Wikimedia wiki page should be directed to an explanation of why such personal accounts are not welcome. Doing so could be part of an even more stringent method of screening health-related questions than just putting restrictions on "medical advice". In my view, the difficulty with applying the Wikipedia definition of "medical advice" is that it is too easy for people to have conflicting views of what "reasonably" constitutes medical advice. In the "canonical example", the questioner presented a "medical" theory: lower intracranial pressure will result in a particular behavioral change, and then asked if that theory makes sense. There are hundreds of other similar questions that can be asked. If I masturbate will I get freckles? If I will myself to grow taller will I grow taller? If I feel a lump under my skin does that mean that I have a bacterium under my skin and I will soon have a fever? Is it productive to say that these kinds of questions are asking for medical advice? At some point, exactly where depends on our personal level of medical knowledge, we will all begin to feel we can no longer "reasonably" view some of these questions as requests for medical advice. At some point we start to find it difficult to say, "You should ask a doctor about that". I'm thinking that rather than debate what can "reasonably" be imagined to be a request for medical advice, maybe we should just reject any health-related question that is framed in a personal way. What I mean by "reject" is that if a questioner frames a question in the context of personal health information, then it might be best to direct the person asking the question to Medical advice tutorial where they would be asked to think about what they can reasonably expect to get from a wiki website and where they are asked to remove their original question from the help desk. Admittedly, Wikiversity is only just getting around to developing that approach, but I think it might work. The second side of the equation concerns providing medical advice. You raised objections (above) to StuRat's reply, but I do not think his reply provided diagnosis, a suggested treatment or a prognosis. I'd like to develop the Wikiversity help desk as a place where emphasis is placed on providing links to reliable sources of health-related information as discussed at Legal definitions of medical practice and medical advice. In the case of the "canonical example" what I see is a silly question that stimulated StuRat to comment on a related subject. In discussing that related subject, StuRat was not providing an answer to the original question, but was raising an interesting and widely discussed issue about how medicine is often practiced. In pedagogical terms, it is not unusual to respond to a confused question with information that might re-direct the confused person's thinking along more productive lines of thought. I've been discussing with StuRat the idea that maybe Wikiversity can direct such confused questioners to Medical advice tutorial before providing them with any health-related information. --JWSchmidt 06:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have archived half the page. My explanation for doing this is that the page was too long and this made the page hard to navigate and slow to load. The archived threads did not get new responses for more than one month. I hope everyone agrees with the archival. a.z. 04:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I would have archived up to the end of March. Perhaps I'll add a second archive for Feb-March 2007 in a week or so. StuRat 04:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Curiosity and learning

I'm just curious about the activity on this page - is this page being coordinated with the help desk on Wikipedia, or are people just interested in answering as many questions as possible? ;-) I've noticed many new names on this page that I don't see anywhere else on RecentChanges, and it looks like a bit of a mini-community here. I suppose this makes me wonder how to best integrate this page with learning activities here on Wikiversity - I think people should be given BOTH the opportunity to read a well-written and/or informative article on Wikipedia, AND be able to make a space in which to learn about their interests here on Wikiversity. This is entirely related to our Learning by doing ethos (see Portal:Education/Wikiversity model), in which people can learn about subjects by asking about them and discussing. In this sense this helpdesk can be the seed from which a learning project/community could grow. What do you all think? Also, does anyone here frequent IRC? It might be good to hang out in #wikiversity-en in order to sound out some ideas for how to develop active learning communities (in general or in relation to a specific question). Thoughts? Cormaggio talk 11:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some questions which the Wikipedia Ref Desk doesn't want to address, like those requiring original research. Three of us (myself, User:a.z., and User:Lewis) thought it was a good fit to redirect some of those questions here and answer them here. This also could help the Wikiversity Help Desk, which otherwise seemed to be in danger of lacking the critical mass needed to succeed. That is, if there is only one question a month, nobody will bother looking for new questions, so answers will take too long, then everybody will stop asking. StuRat 20:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Posterity

All these questions could be viewed as students asking questions in a classroom, so I'll ask if anything is being done to copy these questions to the appropriate department where they can be somehow integrated into a lesson (not that I'm especially clear how to make a lesson). I guess that really just sounds like a lot of busy work for slim-to-none results. I don't know, does anybody else have some thoughts? Xaxafrad 03:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If we have an appropriate article already, and something here looks like a good addition, then that would make sense. However, in most cases a new article would need to be created, and the info in answer to a question here would barely constitute a stub if a new article were to be created for it. StuRat 15:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps some interesting stubs would be useful in stimulating interest in various schools/topics. Wikipedia's stubs in the early days were widely varied in length, quality, content but stimulated a lot of interest in improving the stubs to articles. Perhaps lengthy discussions of interesting topics could start to stimulate interest in evolving learning trails or lesson/resources pertinent to the topic. My current response to an empty topic title, syllabus, list of subtopics, etc. with no actual entry points is to simply click on leaving no record of passing. My typical response to an active discussion or casual pile of intersting information is to "twikify". Mirwin 06:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medical advice

After I've been notified about a user dispensing amateur medical advice on the help desk, I was wondering if perhaps it might be prudent not to cover such topics to avoid unintentional medical injury. The same would probably also apply to legal advice, since there's usually a lot of potential liabilty attached to providing false information. Also, in some jurisdictions, providing medical or legal advice without proper qualifications is against the law. What are your thoughts? sebmol ? 13:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think most people agree that Wikiversity should not be a place where anyone expects to get or give medical advice. Part of the problem is that not everyone agrees on a common definition of what constitutes "medical advice" or "practicing medicine without a license". How do we make a distinction between discussing and learning about medical and legal subjects while at the same time not providing medical or legal advice? As a start towards exploring these questions I started Medical practice and the law. --JWSchmidt 13:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a general disclaimer that basically says "Use at your own risk, Wikiversity is not fit for any and all purposes. By reading or using Wikiversity, you agree to not hold Wikiversity or any contributors liable for any and all of your actions", kind of like the disclaimers commonly found in most software licenses including the GPL, should be enough. --darkYin yang.svglama 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this primarily as a legal how-can-we-cover-our-ass-issue, which is what a disclaimer addresses. There's a dimension of morality and personal responsibility here too. I agree with JWSchmidt that there is not necessarily a common understanding of what constitutes medical advice. Perhaps it would be useful to create a definition we can all agree on as a limit not to be crossed when answering questions at the help desk. sebmol ? 16:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I do not think the disclaimer, by itself, covers the Wikimedia ass if we are passive and allow Wikiversity participants to freely request and receive medical advice. We have to make a good faith and active effort to direct Wikiversity participants away from the temptation to create an exchange system for medical advice. It should not be that hard to guide participants towards factual, education-oriented discussion about medical information that can be supported by citation of reliable sources. Such discussions need to take place within the framework of our education-oriented mission, not a framework that resembles the provision of medical advice to patients. I'm trying to construct specific examples of how to do this at Legal definitions of medical practice and medical advice. There is a real distinction that can be made between giving "medical advice" and providing health-related information....its not just a matter of semantics. I think the Wikipedia reference desk has shown that there will always be people who come to wiki information desks seeking medical advice. Rather than simply delete or ignore questions that seek medical advice, a more education-oriented approach is to have a system in place that functions to shift those people out of their unrealistic expectations and into a frame of mind that will allow them recognize what a wiki website can and cannot do for them. --JWSchmidt 18:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a good comment, John. If we can facilitate an educational process around a certain medical condition, that's absolutely great. If we however seem to be giving advice to someone without any frame of reference for this (ie medical expertise), then I think we are doing the asker a disservice in raising their expectations that this is the place for them to get the advice they need. Cormaggio talk 11:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the underlying theory of Wikiversity is that a group of people learning about a common interest or problem can create materials useful to themselves and others. Consider support groups for specific problems such as aids, cancer, diabetes .... exchange of specific information can stimulate interest in studying specifics and compiling information useful to self and future others. Further the beginning database of each participant is likely to be limited to personal experience since most participants will not be trained medical professionals. I think we need to be careful about dictating to people how they will or will not interact at Wikiversity or run the risk of having little interaction locally. JWSchmidt's proposal to encourage best practices in studying specific issues seems useful approach to settling some of the controversy around this issue as long as it is not used as a bludgeon against people seeking specific information related to personal problems or interests. Not everyone has access to trained medical personal and the Wikimedia and Wikiversity mission statements would seem to preclude limiting access to medical information. Mirwin 07:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We have no real control over people who might read health-related information at Wikiversity and use that information in an attempt to deal with an existing medical problem. However, we do have control over context within which health-related information is presented at Wikiversity. We know that there are people who come to wiki websites in search of medical advice. We can teach such people that there is an important difference between using a wiki for collaborative gathering of health-related information and using a wiki to obtain medical advice. If potential Wikiversity participants cannot learn that distinction, it is better that they not participate at Wikiversity. If insisting that participants make that distinction is a "bludgeon", then I will play the role of chief bludgeon wielder. However, I don't think shifting people from an un-welcomed search for medical advice to a welcomed search for health-related information needs to be thought of as a "bludgeon". --JWSchmidt 16:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, I find your proposed approach to be diplomatic and valuable. The bludgeon would be non diplomatic or unsmooth characters leery of wasting their time typing a few extra words posting WIKIVERSITY IS NOT FOR MEDICAL ADVICE --->> link to prohibitive policy. I do have one concern. I think there are probably many people in the world who will soon arrive at the web who cannot afford routinely professional medical advice and live places where it is not illegal for them to assist each other. Indeed, I suspect that it is not illegal to give medical advice in the U.S. as long as one does not charge for it or misrepresent oneself. The strawman regarding legal liability could easily be extended to any and all information exchange on public wikis. Advise someone McDonald's coffee is excellent and served hot and one/many (and/or Wikimedia Foundation) might easily be listed as a codefendent when the recipient of the opinion scalds their gonads. Still, sticking to general information and applicable hard data and making it clear how it is used is personal responsibility is a fine way to start out in my opinion. The situation is certain to evolve and get clarifed as Wikiversity grows in population and capability. Mirwin 06:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A definitive answer (?)

There is a recognized difference between legal education and legal advice: advice is specific to a given current case or individual; education is of general application. The distinction can be used of medical education and medical advice as well.

Examples:
Q: My situation/symptoms are X, Y and Z. What should I do?
A: The law/diagnosis is thus (explanation), so you should do this. ( = ADVICE)

Q: What is the law surrounding (...) / what are the symptoms of and treatment for (...) ?
A: It is thus (explanation). ( = EDUCATION)

As any creative educationalist will quickly see, the difference between specific and general can be blurred, including by forms of expression as well as matters of substance. The answer to blurring is very simple: the medical or legal educationalist should not blur. What this means in practice is that legal and medical educationalists should stick to well recognized genres or paradigms of education (i.e. those established in their respective fields), rather than experimenting.

In general I dislike saying "this is the answer" of anything, but in this case, I believe it is indeed "the" answer. Legal definitions of medical practice and medical advice seems to be in agreement with some of this.

-- McCormack 20:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shouldn't we be a bit more specific ?

I think we should list some specific categories which are not medical advice, but say "this does not mean that medical info not explicitly listed here is to be automatically construed as medical advice". Some categories I would list:

  • Dietary advice.
  • Exercise advice.
  • Advising people to seek the advice of a doctor or other professional.
  • Providing links to other sites (either sister sites or outside).
  • Relating stories of similar conditions other people have had, how they treated them, and the outcome (but adding "you have the same condition so should (or shouldn't) do that treatment" is medical advice).
  • Listing possible causes of a condition with the usual treatments for each (this is tricky, because listing one condition and saying "you definitely have X and should do Y" is, indeed, medical advice).

I'm also in favor of "turning" medical questions into questions we can answer. For example, a recent Q over at Wikipedia said the poster had injured their back doing heavy lifting and asked how to repair the damage. I referred them to a doctor for that, but then added some tips on proper heavy lifting with the goal of preventing this type of injury from recurring. StuRat 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The first problem is, if someone comes to a wiki and asks for medical advice, just telling them "see a doctor" or "we do not give medical advice" is no guarantee that they will see a doctor rather than interpret as medical advice the health-related information you provide. When you provide medical information to someone who has tried to initiate a patient-doctor relationship, you risk entering into what is functionally a patient-doctor relationship. We do not want to facilitate the formation of a patient-doctor relationship. The second problem is that if you provide health-related information to people who have asked for medical advice, then you are encouraging other people to also ask for medical advice. Our goal is to discourage people from asking for medical advice, not encourage more people to ask for medical advice. If you create a wiki space where you allow people to ask for medical advice then you have created the equivalent of an attractive nuisance...in effect, you are "asking for trouble" or creating the conditions by which observers can reasonable assume that you are helping people create trouble for themselves. Specifically, there will be people who, since they are allowed to ask for medical advice and since by doing so they are getting health-related information, will assume that that they are getting the help they need for their medical problem and they will assume that they do not need to see a doctor (even if you tell them to see a doctor). If we knowingly create a wiki space where we know that people will believe they are getting useful medical advice, then we are helping create a patient-doctor relationship. We do not want to help create such a relationship. I agree that advising people to seek the advice of a doctor or other professional is not giving them professional advice. However, that does not mean that telling people to see a doctor is the best way to respond to a request for medical advice. If someone is misguided enough to come to a wiki help desk and ask for medical advice, you can reasonably suspect that they have a good chance of ignoring your suggestion that they see a doctor. In other words, saying, "see a doctor" to such a person can be as fruitless as having a sign next to a swimming pool that says "danger". A child will ignore the sign and you are still legally responsible for allowing the child to get into your pool. We need the wiki equivalent of a fence that keeps children out of a pool. We need active procedures for preventing people from seeking and giving medical advice at Wikiversity. Rather than just say "see a doctor", we need to explain what a wiki website is and why we do not accept requests for medical advice. I think we should interpret a request for medical advice as a RED FLAG. The impulse to provide health-related information to such a person should be repressed and the response should be a concentrated effort to educate the person who asked for medical advice. We need to take it upon ourselves to educate such people about Wikiversity and our reasons for not entering into a patient-doctor relationship with them. I think it is absurd to say that, "my exercise advice was not intended to be medical advice so I have not given medical advice". When someone asks you for medical advice you should know that they are likely to interpret anything you say as being medical advice, even if you do not intend it to be medical advice. Your intention does not make it "safe" for you to provide health-related information to such a person. Having a desire that no child drown in your pool does not protect you from being held responsible for not having a fence around your pool. --JWSchmidt 14:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • But what about all the other areas where info is provided on the Internet that can potentially be misused, like chemical formulae given for explosives and illegal drugs, info on addictiveness of various drugs, info on weapons, etc. Couldn't any such info be viewed as an "attractive nuisance" ? That is, despite any disclaimers you list, can't the reader still misuse that info to harm themselves ? StuRat 15:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to argue against having health-related information at Wikiversity. I'm not trying to argue against interacting with people who come to wiki websites asking for medical advice. I'm trying to find a way to "do a little dance" that will gracefully shift the thinking of people who ask for medical advice. I think having in place a system that can achieve this shift in thinking fits the educational mission of Wikiversity. I'd like to find a graceful and efficient way of shifting people away from thinking, "Maybe I can get medical advice at this wiki". I want to show such people how to think differently about what they should expect a wiki website can do for them. I'm not sure exactly how to do this, but I'm thinking that we can try to have a Wikiversity learning resource that tries to address this specific problem. Medical practice and the law was started as an attempt to think about how current Wikiversity participants should respond when dealing with questions that seek medical advice. That page is not for the people who ask for medical advice. We need a new main namespace page (maybe called Medical advice tutorial) that will help orient people who ask for medical advice. I'm thinking that the first response to a request for medical advice should be to just provide a link to a page such as Medical advice tutorial. That page would explain why Wikiversity does not want to encourage people to ask for medical advice at Wikimedia wiki websites and would explain how people can constructively use online heath-related information without making the mistake of avoiding medical professionals when medical advice is needed. I like "learn by doing" and I'm thinking that people who have asked for medical advice could be asked to re-word their own question in order to change it into a more general request for health-related information rather than a request for help with a personal health problem. Medical advice tutorial could provide examples of how to do this. How does this differ from just letting others re-write the original question that asked for medical advice? If the person asking the question has to re-write their own question then we know that they are thinking about the problem of asking for medical advice online. To answer the question about people doing harm by making use of information, that is where the "swimming pool analogy" breaks down. We might reasonably try to prevent all children from wandering into pools, but we do not try to prevent everyone from obtaining potentially dangerous information. Our culture values access to information, so potentially dangerous information is usually not restricted. However, I think it fits within the educational mission of Wikiversity to try to provide potentially dangerous information in a way that helps people use that information in safe ways. --JWSchmidt 16:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you said, but do think we should rewrite the Q (either explicitly or implicitly), rather than waiting for the original poster to do so, so we can show them how it's done and provide any answers we're qualified to give in a more timely manner. StuRat 15:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, can I get your opinion on each of the 6 bullet items at the top of this section ? StuRat 15:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd favor having something at the top of the help desk page (in the instructions) such as, "Do not tell us about your personal health matters. If you are tempted to ask a question here about a an existing health problem, please read the Medical advice tutorial first." In my view, when a health-related question involves information about a specific patient, then we are flirting with the establishment of what is functionally a doctor-patient relationship. The person asking the question is at risk of interpreting any reply as constituting medical advice, advice that they can use in dealing with an existing medical problem. The person asking such a question, by providing information about their personal health, has demonstrated a serious lack of understanding about the type of information they can get at a Wikimedia wiki website. I think the correct way to reply to such questions is to explain what Wikiversity is and that nobody at Wikiversity wants to hear about existing medical cases/problems. If someone does provide information about a specific medical cases/problem, I think they should be asked to go to Medical advice tutorial. Upon completing that tutorial they should be able to return to the help desk and re-word their question as an impersonal general knowledge question. It is better that they do this themselves because it demonstrates that they have thought about what is going on. I'm trying to think outside of the box that defines how Wikipedia deals with "medical advice". In trying to avoid "practicing medicine without a license" I think it might be more useful to avoid anything that moves Wikiversity towards a doctor-patient relationship. There cannot be a doctor-patient relationship if the "doctor" knows nothing about the patient's health status. Does that make sense? I think any health-related information can be interpreted as medical advice, and I think we are really trying to avoid making it possible for editors to interpret health-related information at Wikiversity as constituting medical advice. --JWSchmidt 19:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll

It seems to me we are on agreement on most issues. The one area for disagreement seems to be whether responders can reformulate a question asking for medical advice themselves or whether we should require the original poster to do so. I'd like to get an idea of how many people are on each side of this relatively minor issue, so I can then abide by the consensus. So, please list you support below one of the following:

[edit] Allow responder to reformulate question

  • Support. Time may be of the essence. For example, if someone asks "How can I lift my window A/C unit without aggravating my back injury ?", we need to reformulate it to "What is the proper way to lift a window A/C unit ?" and give the answer before they do so improperly and injure themselves further. Also, criticizing the way a question is asked and refusing to answer until it is reformulated appears to fall into the "biting the newbies" category, to me. StuRat 12:48, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Require original poster to reformulate question

[edit] Continue the discussion

  • I'm continuing the discussion, not participating in a vote. StuRat has suggested (above) that we need to quickly reformulate questions that are asked when those questions are not in the form of "general knowledge questions". The example provided by StuRat suggests that Wikiversity has some obligation to answer quickly so as to prevent people from hurting themselves. However, anyone placing themselves in the position of relying on the help desk so that they do not hurt themselves is deeply confused about what the help desk is for. How should we characterize the behavior of anyone at the help desk who is rushing to provide time-critical information that will influence a decision effecting someone's health? In my view, anyone doing this is participating in a mis-guided attempt to collaborate with the questioner who is engaged in an un-welcome use of Wikiversity project resources. Maybe we need to link the phrase (at the top of the help desk) "general knowledge questions" to a subpage that explains what a general knowledge question is and why questioners must format their questions as general knowledge questions. Such a subpage might also be a good place to explain that providing answers to help desk questions is not a race. Providing good answers often involves reflection, research and writing a thoughtful reply that includes links to useful sources of information. Providing good answers also involves paying attention to the way questions are asked. When a question is formated in a way that indicates the person asking the question is confused about the purpose of the help desk, then there is no need to answer the question at all. In my view, the correct response to mis-guided questions is to educate the questioner about the help desk and the nature of wiki websites. We can provide a link to a page that explains how to ask a good question. The questioner can demonstrate that they have learned the purpose of the help desk and the nature of wiki websites by re-writing their own question as a general knowledge question. In my view, if someone else re-writes the question then we are not correctly taking advantage of an educational opportunity and we would risk encouraging people to remain ignorant and mis-use the help desk again in the future. --JWS 16:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link to this page from Wikipedia

It's being discussed here whether the reference desk guidelines should link to the Wikiversity Help Desk. The reference desk is for reference only, but this Help Desk allows people to discuss things. The purposes are different. I feel they should link to one another, so people looking for reference go there and people looking for dialectical conversations come here. a.z. 03:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Telling people to provide links

I very strongly disagree with the sentence added here saying that people should place emphasis on providing links to useful sources of information. This is appropriate for the Wikipedia reference desk, but I believe this help desk should allow and encourage debate, discussion, dialectical conversation, etc. In fact, the rationale when I added a link to this page from Wikipedia was that, while the reference desk is not an appropriate place for long debates, this is. There should be no problem with not adding any links. I propose that the sentence be changed to say that providing links may be useful. a.z. 04:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation of sources is a skill that promotes constructive debates. Making controversial statements without bothering to cite sources invites others to ask for supporting sources and evidence. Providing evidence and citing sources to support controversial statements is a normal part of useful discussions. If you fail to support your controversial statements with evidence then it is natural for other people to ignore you. "should be no problem" <-- Problems can arise when there are participants in a discussion who fail to cite sources and rather than having a useful conversation people end up asserting opinions rather than gathering and analyzing evidence. --JWSchmidt 05:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Links are good in any debate, but shouldn't be required, I would say they "should be encouraged". However, when telling somebody they are wrong, proof should be provided. Otherwise, if neither party provides proof, the discussion can degenerate into a shouting match. While links are one form of proof, there are others, like logic, and "original research". For example, if someone denies that cats have an inner eyelid, one form of "original research" proof would be to provide a pic of your cat with the third eyelid showing. If someone says "if God existed he would create the world, and the world does exist, therefore God must have made it", a logical counter-argument can be made, by explaining the flaw in their logic. In this case you could say "then, following your logic, if it rains the street gets wet, so, therefore, if the street is wet, it must have rained". Then point out that a wet street could result from a flood, burst dam or water main, snow melt, dew, etc. StuRat 15:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to discuss those issues with you, but now I have another point, one that I would like to focus on.

I don't like the sentence being on the help desk page.

On this talk page, signed by the authors, it's fine, but I feel that "official" recommendations on the desk are just unhelpful.

JWSchmidt, StuRat, and I and everyone could write our own signed opinions about what is good on the help desk on a page called Wikiversity:Help desk/Suggestions.

That sentence was added with no signature and people who read it won't know what it is supposed to be (a policy, a recommendation, a suggestion, a guideline, etc). I would not like people on the desks "quoting" the sentence as if it were a rule.

I really disliked it when I read:

"When responding to help desk questions, place emphasis on providing links to useful sources of information." --JWS 03:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a point that someone's argument on a thread needs a link, make it. If you want to tell people how good it is to provide links, do it using your words and arguments, as both of you did above, and sign it. If you want to prevent people from having their arguments ignored for not providing links, you can do that without making rules, without citing rules.

People are not stupid and they don't need you to tell them what to do. Readers are intelligent people that can choose whether they'll accept a source-less argument or not, if they're going to take seriously an argument without logic, whatever.

If you want them to do something, if you think they should see something differently, just convince them to do so. If you feel someone's argument is not good because it lacks links (or anything else), you may ignore it if you wish, and this is not such a big deal.

I know no one started removing posts from the desk yet, no one started saying that people were breaking the rules, no one is discussing over rule-interpretation, but that's where we'll be if we don't stop rules like those from being created now.

It does not harm anyone to say "there are human races" or "there are not human races" without citing any source. I mean, it may not be a good thing to do, but the post should not be removed for that, no editor should be frowned upon for doing that, no rule needs to be created to solve that. It's not a personal attack or anything like that, which are for what rules should exist. As I said, you can ignore it, you can say it's wrong, you can say people shouldn't take the argument seriously, but we don't need a rule.

Just to make it clear: I think StuRat's posts on that thread are fine and interesting. If I feel I need some link to further understand what he means or to know whether he can back up his arguments, I'll just request it to him.

Also just to make it clear: I have nothing against JWS nor do I dislike them. a.z. 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I think JWS/JWSchmidt was just stating his opinion, not making a new rule. Perhaps it would have made this clearer had he added "In my opinion..." at the start. StuRat 03:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good way to state his opinion. I'm referring to the sentence on the help desk, are you? It ought to have been "in my opinion, when responding to help desk questions, one should place emphasis on providing links to useful sources of information." a.z. 04:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's the sentence to which I refer. StuRat 13:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The one added by JWSchmidt here? a.z. 17:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
No, I refer to the sentence you put in the block quote up above. StuRat 01:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you think about the same sentence being added to the header? a.z. 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I would weaken it somewhat, to say we "encourage links", so as not to imply that we require them. As to the method of the change, I would prefer if a consensus for any rules changes be garnered here first. StuRat 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"imply that we require them" <-- What implies that providing links and citations is required? --JWSchmidt 16:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The phrase "place emphasis on providing links to useful sources of information" could mean not only that links are required, but that the majority of the answer should be based on those links. That's just one interpretation, though. StuRat 18:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

On the Wikiversity:Help desk I saw the statement, "your response is neither true nor informed," a statement that was made with no attempt to cite supporting sources. I added into the discussion a reminder (a quote from the instructions at the top of the page) that was intended to be a helpful suggestion for how to move the discussion towards a more productive exchange of information. --JWSchmidt 22:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you're JWS :-) I thought you were two different users. I have no problem with you adding that sentence to the thread, but I don't want it to be unsigned on the header. It is merely an opinion, and I would not like it to become a rule. I think I have explained this fairly well above. a.z. 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"I have explained this" <-- What has been explained? Are you arguing that there is some problem with encouraging people to cite sources? --JWSchmidt 03:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
No, not at all. There is a problem with making a rule saying that people should place emphasis on providing links. People can contribute constructively to the help desk without providing links. a.z. 07:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
I think A.Z. might also object to the appearance of you unilaterally changing the Help Desk rules. I, for one, would prefer to see any rules change discussed here first, then, if a consensus is reached to make a rules changes, we can update the header with the agreed-upon text. StuRat 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. a.z. 03:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Header

I made a header template. Any objections? a.z. 18:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. StuRat 01:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic

Does anyone know what kind of daily traffic this site gets? How about the school of Theology?

Thanks. Magosgruss 21:48 02.28.2008 (UTC)

Do you mean all of Wikiversity or just the Help Desk ? StuRat 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean all of wikiversity. or maybe just the main page is the first is too daunting a task. Magosgruss 03.01.2008 17:34 (UTC)
Since you aren't getting a response here, I'm going to repost on the Help desk proper (as opposed to this Help desk talk page). StuRat 17:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updated Nav-Header

I've just done Template:Help desk header 0.5 an updated version of the current one - am i fine to update the current one. Terra 18:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Questions/comments about archiving

The new header seems to say it will only archive sections that have gone over 19 days old without a new response (which is fine) that have at least 5 signed responses (which is NOT fine). Many, perhaps most, of the answered questions here will never have 5 signed responses. A single signed response is quite common. Also, we don't want to keep unanswered questions here forever, they should be archived, too.

Further, manually archiving (which I've been doing every couple of months), doesn't seem like it will work now, because the manually archived sections would need to be interspersed between all the automatically archived sections, which would be far more work than the block archive I've been doing. I recommend removing any requirement for number of signed responses in the automatic archiving system. If this can't be done, let's turn it off and go back to manual archiving. StuRat 14:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The archiving configuration has been removed, we could archive this Help desk manually. Terra 17:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll also undo the two sections which were already automatically archived, so everything can be archived consistently. StuRat 19:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I did that and manually archived March, 2008. It appears that with all that aditional header info I now need to archive every month to keep the page from going over 32 KB. One other problem, though, there are two "Restore Discussion" buttons on the new archive page, but neither of them appear to restore anything, they just open up the editor as if the user wants to post a new question. StuRat 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to actually restore a previous discussion automatically, this seems complicated for me to do. We may have to reword it for the time been, and see if other's know how to do it. Terra 20:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Rather than "reword it for the time being", I'd suggest removing both buttons, unless we can get them to work. It seems that we would need to allow the user to pick which section(s) from which archive(s) to restore, which would be tricky indeed. StuRat 22:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the two buttons, and have reworded the last sentence I hope this is alright. Terra 19:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. How about simplifying the text to just: "...you may restore a previous discussion however you'll have to restore the discussion manually" ? StuRat 15:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I've changed the last text, how does it look now. Terra 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks great, thanks ! StuRat 23:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archive!

I recommend we bring Archivebot over to this Help Desk. Comments? Thoughts no how frequent archiving should be? The Jade Knight (d'viser) 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_talk:Help_desk"