Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
Please folks... You know fully well that's the kind of things that goes on the talk page, not on the main refdesk page. Move it there, if you really want to rehash it. TigraanClick here to contact me 16:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).
Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. Here is some professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, medical disclaimer. legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer.)
There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive.
Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline.
BTW, here is some more free advice: In my opinion both terminal cancer and AIDS are even more effective methods of weight loss than food poisoning or crystal meth, so if you really want to shed those pounds why not try all four at the same time? More advice: don't get your medical advice from an electronics engineer.In case anyone missed it, that was a joke. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In order to properly evaluate your assertion, would you be so kind as to tell us which of the five numbered entries on the WP:SOAPBOX page you believe forbids the above? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will take that as an admission that you don't actually believe that I have violated any part of WP:SOAPBOX with my comments above. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to make of your post, because you seem to frame it as if in counterpoint to my own, and yet much of your perspective seems similar to my own assertions. However, a few important caveats:
No, it's is not really appropriate (let alone "vastly preferable") to answer even simple questions where they have potential medical or legal consequences. The best course of action there is -always- to point the individual in question to a qualified professional, no matter how obvious the answer may seem, because the devil is very much in the detail when it comes to risks in this area. I agree with you insofar as there is a world of difference between the inappropriateness of telling someone not to take a risk and the inappropriateness of encouraging them to do so; the latter is clearly much more unacceptable. But neither form of speculation should be engaged with by amateurs. The irony is, some of us certainly are qualified to provide medical or legal advice, but it is exactly those individuals who would never do so in this highly problematic forum (for both professional and ethical reasons). Which means by definition the people providing advice of that sort here are those who are not qualified to be doing so. Shutting down inquiries that can lead to poor advice that may affect another's well-being is such a substantial way is manifestly the appropriate thing to do in such situations; engaging with such questions just so one can scratch the itch of playing expert is irresponsible in the extreme.
And as to your closing comment there, I presume that the electrical engineer in question is yourself, in a quasi-self-effacing jib. Here's the problem with that: the person requesting that information probably doesn't know your background (I didn't, and we've been editing alongside eachother in multiple spaces for years) and they may be foolish enough to assume anyone answering a question knows their stuff, which is...not likely, to put it mildly, when it comes to the RefDesks. Meaning no disrespect to the present OP, but many of the people who will come here seeking guidance on a question with medical implications may not be exactly flush with good common sense, or they probably would not be making such an inquiry here to begin with. We have a moral obligation not to facilitate their reliance on advice about such issues, by closing down such conversations. With certainty, nobody should be spitballing answers to such questions here. We should especially never be telling them "don't bother to check with a professional, just trust me."
I think you may want to review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS yourself, because you've nearly completely inverted the policy with your presentation of it there. Here's the very first sentence from that section of WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." (emphasis added). Nothing in that subsection remotely implies that local groups of editors cannot come to their own conclusions about the best way forward on an issue, be it content or process. And indeed, obviously this is so, because the entirety of that policy is about how one goes about doing exactly that. LOCALCON only tells us that broader approaches already adopted cannot be put aside by local editors.
And dearth of guidelines or not, this is a topic the community (here at the RefDesks and elsewhere) have grappled with, and shown a great deal of concern about. I guarantee you that anyone making a habit of providing medical or legal advice (even if the answers seem entirely straightforward in every instances) would eventually be removed from this space. Indeed, I'm not sure how heavily involved you have been here recently, but in the event you missed the actions, we have recently topic banned an editor (and warned others) who have a habit of offering fly-by responses, and most of their offenses didn't even rise to the level of importance of medical or legal advice. Partly this was done out of a concern with the quality of our responses, but also because acting with impunity in this regard has been increasingly bringing the broader community's scrutiny upon this corner of the project (for entirely legitimate reasons, in my opinion). There was even a VPP discussion six months ago that sought to close the desks altogether because of the problems wrought by our most free-wheeling "contributors"--and potentially dangerous advice was one of the issues raised there. I guarantee the regular and semi-regular contributors to this space are not going to allow the people who think they are a qualified expert on everything get the RefDesks (a valuable part of our educational exercise) shutdown over such nonsense.
Beyond that, you've been around long enough that you surely know that there are higher authorities on this project than even community consensus. For example, the WMF, which (in the strict legal sense anyway) owns this project and its assets. The WMF imposes many rules that put limitations upon what our policies can or cannot say, and provide guidance that is in effect regardless of whether or not the community has yet arrived at the same conclusions. Shall we ping WMF legal here and ask them if we are allowed to provide medical or legal advice in direct response to explicit inquiries? Because I feel I can tell you with some certainty that the standard they will require of us will not map very well to the one you're suggesting. And indeed, they have very compelling reason for requiring that we err on the side of caution; as the entity hosting this space, they have substantial vicarious liability for any ill-advised (read: dumbarse) medical or legal (or otherwise dangerous) advice provided here. Such considerations being in addition to any previously mentioned moral restraints that we ought to be applying in such cases.
Sorry, but all said, I strongly disagree with you. Would I call an editor out for telling someone to do the cautious thing with regard to consuming something potentially toxic? No--in fact, the above discussion demonstrates as much, so it would be foolish for me to claim otherwise. But do I think that is the ideal solution? No, I do not, because to encourage such an approach is to open up the door to someone pressing the matter too far on an issue they feel is "obvious", and potentially causing real harm as a consequence. The appropriate response is to close down all such threads on sight and encourage the individual to seek the professional advice they need. Not the random best guesswork of the Reference Desk regulars--no matter the fact that we are a generally knowledgeable group whom I am happy to count myself amongst. Snowlet's rap 04:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughtful response. Alas, I believe that you have a few things wrong and that it may be worth appealing to a higher authority by asking WMF legal or the community (in the form of an RfC) in order to resolve which of us is mistaken.
The first thing that I believe that you have wrong is WP:LOCALCON. You say
"I think you may want to review WP:LOCALCONSENSUS yourself, because you've nearly completely inverted the policy with your presentation of it there. Here's the very first sentence from that section of WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." (emphasis added). Nothing in that subsection remotely implies that local groups of editors cannot come to their own conclusions about the best way forward on an issue, be it content or process. And indeed, obviously this is so, because the entirety of that policy is about how one goes about doing exactly that. LOCALCON only tells us that broader approaches already adopted cannot be put aside by local editors."
I believe that your interpetation of WP:LOCALCON is incorrect. You seem to be saying that a local consensus (such as a handful of editors making some local rules and never bothering to post an RfC to see if the community approves those rules) is binding on all Wikipedia editors unless it conflicts with a policy or guideline that has been approved by the community. I say that no such local consensus is binding on all Wikipedia editors.
In this particular case we do have an existing policy or guideline that the local consensus is attempting to override. That guideline is WP:TPOC. And none of the editors who have come to the local consensus that it is OK to remove medical or legal advice have attempted to add medical or legal advice to the list of posts that are allowed to be removed per TPOC.
So far the administrators at WP:AN and WP:ANI have consistently refused to enforce any local consensus. If every case that I am aware of they have asked the person reporting the violation of a "rule" supported only by a local consensus to post an RfC and see if the community agrees to make the rule part of our global consensus (in other words, a policy or guideline).
I can see one way that we could resolve this difference of opinion. You (as the person advocating violating WP:TPOC by removing posts) could post an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) asking the community whether a local consensus is binding on all Wikipedia editors unless it conflicts with a policy or guideline that has been approved by the community. Or you could post an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines asking them to add asking and/or answering requests for medical and legal advice to be added to WP:TPOC.
Until an RfC says otherwise, we already have the answer when the local consensus attempts to override WP:TPOC: As it says in WP:LOCALCON, such rules "have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, [and] thus have no more status than an essay".
Another possibility is that I am misinterpreting your response and that you are not advocating removing posts that ask for or give medical or legal advice in violation of WP:TPOC but rather are advocating reporting them at WP:ANI. Is so, we agree. While I have never seen ANI enforce any rule that is supported only by a local consensus, they can and do enforce our global-consensus-approved rule against being disruptive, and WP:TPOC does allow removal of harmful posts. That is why my advice about crystal meth above would be a good test case. It clearly contains medical, legal, and professional advice, but it is neither disruptive or harmful. In other words some (I can see a strong argument for "most") medical, legal, and professional advice is disruptive (and should be reported) or harmful (and should be removed). So, is anyone here willing to report me to WP:ANI for posting medical, legal, and professional advice without being disruptive? Or is anyone here willing to delete my advice about crystal meth and thus volunteer to be reported at WP:ANI for violating WP:TPOC?
The other area where I believe that you got it wrong is when you write
"The WMF imposes many rules that put limitations upon what our policies can or cannot say, and provide guidance that is in effect regardless of whether or not the community has yet arrived at the same conclusions. Shall we ping WMF legal here and ask them if we are allowed to provide medical or legal advice in direct response to explicit inquiries? Because I feel I can tell you with some certainty that the standard they will require of us will not map very well to the one you're suggesting."
You can ask them if you wish, but be aware that dozens of editors have asked them already and that they have steadfastly refused to endorse the removal of medical or legal advice by non-administrators. They either ignore the query or tell the person asking to go to ANI or Arbcom with the specific post. And the disclaimers (general disclaimer, medical disclaimer. legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer) also lack any wording that implies that local consensus overrides WP:TPOC or in any way hints that non-administrators are allowed to delete non-harmful posts such as my advice on crystal meth. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoughtful response as well. To answer your implied inquiry, I personally don't advocate for removing the posts of others. Even though the reference desks are unique amongst Wikipedia spaces in combining aspects of content and process pages--and correspondingly, the question of how much our content policies govern (vs. TPG) is an open one--I personally don't think it's a good solution to encourage our contributors to go around reverting one-another's comments off the page. It just has too much potential for disruption and edit warring. Probably if someone was encouraging a course of action that was manifestly dangerous and/or illegal, I'd have to reconsider that stance, but it would have to be a pretty explicit and non-ambiguous case. Likewise, I don't view ANI as an ideal solution, partly for some of the reasons you mention above and for others beside. Here too, there may be exceptions where I'd support taking this action, but only with regard to someone who makes a habit of providing this kind of advice; the noticeboards are just not a well-suited (or in-proportion) solution to isolated incidents--not even ANI. Rather, the solution I advocate for is shutting down any discussion that has significant medical or legal implications for the OP (or any others which are blatantly straying into such advice at the direction of overzealous contributors), instead directing the OP to seek their advice from professionals, and creating a culture of making this the default approach. Of course, that's largely the case already, so what I am really advocating for, I suppose, is the reinforcement and codification of that approach--the latter being, as you point out, a very much unresolved matter.
Regarding another of your points: are you saying that you know of instances where the WMF legal has weighed in on the RefDesks? I'm aware of instances where WMF personnel have tangentially addressed the matter of the limits of our medical or legal content, but I am not familiar with any occasion where they have commented upon (or been asked to comment upon) whether direct medical or legal advice on the reference desks is permissible. The disclaimers are meant to express lack of warranty on our article content, as a source of abstract, objective, and generalized knowledge. That is a very, very different context from individualized, specific advice, provided to someone in a direct exchange of comments. The implications for liability (and for the potential for harm generally) are different between those acitvies/forms of content in key respects. To the extent the WMF legal team has not put a moratorium on the latter activity, I can only assume it is because much of what happens here flies under their radar. But if I'm mistaken and they have been asked about the specific activity of direct medical/legal advice at the desks (as opposed to the more general variety implicit in encyclopedia content), I'd be in the debt of anyone who can direct me towards it, because I missed the discussion, whenever it was.
I have some further thoughts as the LOCALCON issue, but I'm just out the door in minutes here, so they will have to wait (and it may be worth moving further discussion to the talk page if we want to discuss further, so as not to clog the front page further). I will say that I think your proposed solution (an RfC at VPP) probably has some merit, though I think may make more sense to make the question even more specific and ask the broader community to simply validate or reject the "no medical or legal advice" rules. Indeed, that's pretty much the standard process we ask other sub-communities to utilize when the want to turn WP:advice page/WP:LOCALCON "best practice" suggestions into a firm rule and principle of community consensus. Snowlet's rap 12:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to moving this entire section to the talk page, leaving a link here.
As for WMF legal, I also am not familiar with any occasion where they have commented upon whether medical or legal advice on the reference desks is allowed. But I do recall (I would have to search to find examples, and memory can be tricky) them being asked. Anyone reading this is free to ask them and see what the response is.
When I read your
"shutting down any discussion that has significant medical or legal implications for the OP (or any others which are blatantly straying into such advice at the direction of overzealous contributors), instead directing the OP to seek their advice from professionals, and creating a culture of making this the default approach."
I realized that I had neglected the option of shutting down the discussion with Template:Hidden archive top. This does appear to be a much better solution than deletion in violation of TPOC or an ANI report of a first time offender. I have a minor disagreement with the bit about directing the OP to seek their advice from professionals; I think that a simple link to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer is a better choice and a better fit for the limited space of a hat comment. Also, asking someone to make an appointment with an M.D. to ask whether eating rotten food and using crystal meth are healthy is just plain silly. They aren't, and there is nothing wrong with saying so.
And of course hatting should never be automatic, but should be applied wisely. If, for example the section that started this only contained a short question about whether to eat rotten rice and a brief reply advising the OP to throw it out and clean the container thoroughly, I don't see that as being a good candidate for hatting. (Which would likely result in another long pointless debate about whether "don't eat rotten food" is medical advice.) I have seen some real stretches by editors who want to delete what other editors write, calling almost everything they don't like "medical or legal advice".
So it looks like we are in broad agreement about how the refdesks should handle requests for legal or medical advice. That being said, I still contend that Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines directly contradicts WP:TPOC. In particular the words "For removing a question seeking medical advice, you can make use of the boilerplate text..." are advising editors to violate WP:TPOC, which does not allow such a removal.
And I still stand by the statement at the top of this section:
"There are some who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them)."
Methamphetamine salts are effective in the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy. Discuss with your doctor. 151.227.20.35 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a varicocele show up on a conventional (black and white) ultrasound, or would it only show using Doppler ultrasonography? I'm reading conflicting information. Thanks Uhooep (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
