Is general reference used inconsistently?

Question

The general reference close reason reads as follows:

This question is too basic; it can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information.

Fairly straight foward, however, I've noticed it is being applied inconsistently across the site. The questions Which Doctor Who episodes were written by Steve Cole? and What two TNG episodes does Ashley Judd appear in and does she say she didn't? were closed as General Reference since they are answered on Wikipedia. However, the questions Who was the judge in The Dark Knight Rises? and Is there an older Doctor Who series? are also answered via their respective Wikipedia pages and have not been closed. I flagged the latter two questions in case they were just overlooked, and although the flags were marked helpful, no action was taken on either them.

The above are just a few examples, I'm sure there are more. Is their some reason to keep the latter two questions open while closing the first two? If not the latter two should be closed (or the first two opened, in which case the general reference close reason may need to be refined).

Being inconsistent with closing questions can be a serious problem. Not only will it cause confusion for users, it also aggravate new users whose questions are closed while other nearly identical questions remain open. This problem has been experienced over at Gaming.SE, and normally results in a very sour new user (who sometimes decide the site is not for them).

Answer 1

This Question

I personally believe the question should be closed. While Gilles brings up the point that the word "trial" could be edited out of the article, it wouldn't be. Why?

This scene is a plot point in the movie, a crucial moment of tension in the narrative. The movie/franchise has already demonstrated by this point that anyone could die. Crane's insane sham of a trial is a critical part of the last act of the film.

Given this, and given that any reasonable person would have read the entire film summary before asking a room full of strangers this type of question, I would have to say that this question really should be closed, whether as General Reference or Not Constructive is up to the community.

General Reference as Enforced

As for the rest of your question: Is general reference being applied inconsistently? My own observations say no. I believe, for the most part, that the application of General Reference is usually in line with how it was agreed upon when General Reference was introduced, that if a "quick Google search" answered the question, then it was to be closed as general reference. However, in general, it seems to be that the actual application of the GR close reason usually comes when the question is answered in the opening sentences of the Wikipedia article.

In my opinion, these two positions are not mutually exclusive. It's not a case of one or the other -- the two feed into one another. That said, I feel that the position advocated in that linked answer is somewhat "softer" than the Stack Exchange philosophy.

It's worth noting that "interestingness" is wholly determined by the community. This is an important thing to note because it's part of the upvote hover text:

This question shows research effort; it is useful and clear.

How "interesting" a question is can usually be elucidated from the upvotes it receives. A good question that is suitably interesting should demonstrate ways the asker has attempted to answer or "logic" out the answer themselves. This is the same "show your work" standard we apply on any site.

Thus, the tension is: how do we maintain our site quality and provide excellent answers while still making this site welcoming to new users? General Reference is one way to fill this gap.

However, it's prone to being abused, as some users in the comments above noted. Personally, I don't think GR is misused or even overused on this site. I think it's usually applied as it should be: sporadically and only when "Not Constructive" isn't the true issue.

Summary

To sum:

• That DKR question should be closed.
• I don't think "general reference" is being inconsistently applied.
• As a bonus: I think "not constructive" should be used BEFORE "General Reference" is considered.

I'm interested to see what the community thinks of this.

Answer 2

Perhaps, but like on SO, perhaps Scifi.se is becoming a better resource?

Both the ones closed are based in misinterpretations that would have caused them to be non-questions (i.e. Ashely judd didn't deny anything, and Stephen cole wasn't a TV story writer).

The Dr Who one provides genuine new information it seems; A very quick browse of the wiki page for Doctor Who doesn't bring up the fact that the series is split into an old a new.

Someone searching for 'Judge' on the IMDB page, for instance does not bring up 'Cillian Murphy ... Dr. Jonathan Crane / Scarecrow'. However it's not really a big enough leap that it warranted a self answer.

Perhaps I could edit the Dr Who series split into the first line of the wiki page, but then it would be general reference.

Answer 3

First, a note on “general reference”, because if you're only familiar with the SO blog and not with this site, you might have a wrong idea of what it means.

The general reference close reason as used on this site is not exactly the one that was proposed by Borror0, nor even exactly what Jeff had in mind when he made it a feature.

• The original diagram proposed to close any question whose answer could easily be found on Google, with the proviso that only “basic and trivial” questions would be closed, not “complex and interesting” ones.
• The general reference close reason is restricted to questions that “can be definitively and permanently answered by a single link to a standard internet reference source designed specifically to find that type of information”. Google doesn't enter into play. This avoids getting into the Google hell where the top hits are all saying “google it”, but it's not the main reason. A bigger problem with “google it” is that it's difficult to judge the reliability of the search results.
• On this site, only Wikipedia and IMDB are considered “general references” that people should check before asking. See What sites should be considered general references?, Is Wikia.com general reference?. Furthermore, we are fairly strict for “definitively and permanently answered” — not unlike Borror0's easy-to-find criteria (“scattered across the page, hard to find, answered with too many technical terms” → answer).

Another point is that part of the reason to close a question as general reference is not to waste time composing an answer when the Wikipedia editors have already done it. There is a little less mileage in closing a question once it's been satisfactorily answered, though there is no reason to keep an answer around if it's a mere Wikipedia copy-paste. We do, however, generally close the questions and later delete close questions to avoid creating broken windows.

---

Who was the judge in The Dark Knight Rises? is now closed as general reference, since a few minutes ago. However, it doesn't seem like a general reference question to me. I looked up the Wikipedia page and the IMDB page.

• On Wikipedia, I can't find any mention of a judge or of exile. After prodding, you point out that searching for trial does provide the answer. I don't think this is a good reason to close the question, because:

  • this fails the “hard to find” test that is even in Borror0's stringent version of the close reason: having to try many different synonyms of a word does not fit the spirit of the general reference close reason, which is that it is easier to find the answer in the general reference than to ask the question;
  • this is the sort of buried detail that may be lost in an edit — we only apply the general reference close reason when we have confidence that the general reference will last, for Wikipedia that would typically mean that the article as a whole, or a section, or at least a fundamental part thereof answers the question.
• On IMDB, I can't see a judge character on the full cast page; there's a tiny photo of the actor among a very long list, but I can barely see the resemblance even knowing the answer, the information is impossible to find if you don't know the answer already.

So I don't see how this question should be considered general reference. Note that asking questions about a movie does not require having seen the movie, let alone be intimately familiar with every character.

Is there an older Doctor Who series? is a different beast. The obvious Wikipedia article does clearly retrace the history of the series; the introduction of the article explains the 2005 relaunch. We have the information in the tag wiki as well, though that doesn't really help since 99.9% of visitors don't know about tag wikis.

---

Since you've apparently spent some time doing community moderation on a Stack Exchange site, you should know that posts occasionally fall down the cracks, and that it's impossible to be completely consistent even with perfect information since different people will make different judgements. You raise the issue of people who complain about inconsistent treatment — your question is part of the problem. I recommend that you adopt a more constructive attitude. Rather than bring on a generic complaint about how we aren't doing our job properly, search the meta site for prior discussions (they should be easy to find: browse the general-reference tag), and if you think a question should be closed when it's been left open or vice versa, leave a comment on the question and open a meta thread about that question.