17

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).

  • Questions on this site fall into a few categories: identification, easily Google-able, speculation, requiring the author to create more material, or the rarest category of all "answerable via expert knowledge of the subject". The first four are by far the most common. – Gorchestopher H Oct 26 '12 at 22:31
  • I don't know about the Batman one, but the Doctor Who one really should be closed... – Izkata Oct 27 '12 at 1:00
  • 2
    General Reference is a wretched beast of subjectivity. May it be slain. – Gabe Willard Oct 28 '12 at 2:10
  • @GabeWillard - see also: meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/2249/… – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 28 '12 at 21:31
  • 1
    @GabeWillard - I had a proposal on how to make G.R. very objective. People nearly universally hated it. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 28 '12 at 23:15
  • @DVK That meta post you linked to is very highly upvoted. Why was nothing done as a follow through on it? – Gabe Willard Oct 29 '12 at 7:36
  • @GabeWillard - because the emphasis is on making it EASIER to put down other people's questions. God forbid we have a non-subjective methodology and rules for marking content as undesirable. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 29 '12 at 16:22
3

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.

  • One of the problems with your answer is that, when I DO post a question which show my own research, they get DVed and more rarely VTCed as as "your question already contains an answer". And frankly, what SFF site needs is more people asking questions, not more people "purifying" the meager existing ones by downvoting and VTCing anything their expert opinion subjectively deems "obvious" (which not everyone agrees on - if it's so obvious, it should be obvious to everyone). – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 29 '12 at 10:59
  • Frankly, this community became positively toxic to those asking questions. As I said on chat, I'm very strongly considering not asking any more of them. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 29 '12 at 11:01
1

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.

  • 1
    +1. You can not possibly figure out the judge issue from IMDB or Wikia unless you already know what you're looking for - nether supports search by an image of an actor, which is what the question was about. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 26 '12 at 17:30
  • 3
    @DVK: Yes you can. It's in the synopsis (spoilers): The wealthy and powerful are dragged from their homes and given show trials, presided over by Dr. Jonathan Crane, where the "convicted" die no matter the sentence. – Wipqozn Oct 26 '12 at 17:31
  • 3
    @Wipqozn - as I said, "... unless you know what you are searching for". Having to dig through a long Wiki page for this un-googleable snippet is NOT AT ALL what G.R. is about or was meant to be about. "On the Wikipedia" is NOT a sufficient G.R. reason by itself - there are other conditions. – DVK-on-Ahch-To Oct 26 '12 at 17:32
  • 1
    -1 I disagree that these questions provide new information. Both answers can be found by spending a few minutes on the Wikipedia page for each franchise. – Wipqozn Oct 26 '12 at 17:33
  • 2
    @dvk All you needed to know to find that was that the character was acting as a judge, which is something the OP of the question knew (And you would discover from watching the movie). Furthermore, although your second point about digging through a long wiki page makes sense I don't see how it applies in this case. If you're looking for information on a character you should expect to find that answer in two places: The casting list, and the synopsis. The plot and cast are only a few paragraphs long, and so... – Wipqozn Oct 26 '12 at 17:37
  • ...I don't think expecting a user to read those is too much. – Wipqozn Oct 26 '12 at 17:38
  • 7
    That people would not know who the judge was in DKR would be a lot more credible if the person asking the question didn't self answer it. It's straight up seeding with very little evidence there was a real problem trying to find that information. – user366 Oct 26 '12 at 18:27
  • 3
    @DVK To put it another way, you/Pureferret says it's not easily knowable and something people would be looking for. But the one question we got was known by the guy who asked it. It'd be a lot more convincing this is a question people are searching for the answer to if we actually got a question about it from someone who, in fact, didn't know the answer; or even had something showing people can't easily find the answer (links to other Q&A sites?). But right now it's just denying the claim without anything to disprove it, and without that, the question pretty much fits the GR close reason. – user366 Oct 26 '12 at 20:40
  • 3
    @MarkTrapp et al. I somehow missed the self answer, well caught. – AncientSwordRage Oct 26 '12 at 20:46
  • 2
    @Slytherincess I think this instance seemed to be 'seeding'. The user didn't have a real issue, they just wanted rep. I don't know where it's discussed. Probably here. – AncientSwordRage Oct 27 '12 at 12:30
  • 1
    Yes, but how do you know that the user merely wanted rep? And, well, isn't that why we're here, in addition to making the internet a better place? For example, I asked my recent question on Muggle-repelling Charms because the subject of Muggle-repelling Charms had come up before and I happened to come across the information about dragons and their effects on such charms. I left the question open for quite a few days and didn't get an answer including the dragon aspect, so I answered it myself. (cont.) – Slytherincess Oct 27 '12 at 13:22
  • 3
    @Slytherincess The issue isn't that it was self-answered; self-answering is good. But we have no evidence to demonstrate that there are people who are actually confused about the judge in DKR other than a bunch of high-rep users—who knew the answer—saying there are. So the issue is with using a self-answered question as justification alone that the question is something people are actually looking for, because it's begging the question. – user366 Oct 27 '12 at 17:50
  • 4
    @Slytherincess It has nothing to do with motive. 1) A claim has been made that the question is General Reference. 2) The claim was rebuffed, ostensibly claiming the existence of the question is proof positive people had trouble finding the answer. 3) But the question was self-answered immediately after asking, demonstrating the person asking didn't, in fact, have trouble finding the answer elsewhere. Therefore, it does not entail, from the existence of that question alone, that it is a burning question people are actually having trouble finding the answer to. – user366 Oct 27 '12 at 19:18
  • 2
    @Pureferret The Doctor Who one makes it explicit in the 3rd paragraph before the TOC: The programme originally ran from 1963 to 1989. After an unsuccessful attempt to revive regular production in 1996 with a backdoor pilot in the form of a television film, the programme was relaunched in 2005 by Russell T Davies – Izkata Oct 28 '12 at 4:24
  • 1
    @Gilles I've added the source. – Wipqozn Oct 28 '12 at 21:56

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .