Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guide for answering questions

This is a guide for answering questions on the Wikipedia Reference desks.

How to properly answer questions on the Reference Desk

The goal of this reference desk is to help people find resources to answer their questions, much like a real "brick-and-mortar" reference desk at a public or school library. Traditional ref desks are usually staffed by librarians, who are highly trained in information retrieval, i.e. locating references. Usually patrons will not get a direct answer to their questions at a library reference desk, they will be directed to references which are likely to yield answers if the patron has the time to read and do further research.

In contrast, most respondents here are not trained librarians, but many of them have considerable expertise, in biology, mathematics, chemistry, history, classical music, and so on. Many posters will appreciate direct answers to their questions, and our community can often do so, and this makes the Wikipedia reference desks a unique place. However, when posting answers, it is not advisable to rest solely on one's expertise. Feel free to draw from your knowledge and experience, but answers are always improved by suitable references.

General advice

• Don't come to the party empty-handed. Bring along a link - either an internal link to a Wikipedia article or an external link where they can read about the answer to their question from an authoritative source, or the title of a book, journal article, magazine article, newspaper article, something. Even if you're contributing in another way - for example, by working the math - try to bring along a link that explains the math. (That's because ten years after you took the class, without your grade riding on the result, and kind of hazy on the principle, you're probably going to foul it up) Rarely, you can get by with a description from personal experience for something easy to know and hard to cite, like what a word means in your country, but this is still a poor substitute for a source that has thought through the question fully.

• Remember the angels' share. Every once in a while when you set down to compose your answer, you'll realize there's something fundamentally wrong with it. Looking into your sources (you do have sources...) you'll see something that disagrees with what you thought, or your math won't work out right, or the answer will just seem obvious or redundant. If your standards don't occasionally mean you close the window and discard your work, you don't have standards, and that's going to show.

• Warn of poor responses, but prove good ones. If you just did a search, try to be clear about that; if you don't know the topic, let them know; if you just want to make a stray comment, try putting it in small font. But if your answer is good, don't pontificate about your credentials. You'll look ridiculous when you're wrong, and sooner or later everyone is. Use your expertise to dig up multiple sources and to provide additional related information until the verifiability of your answer is self-evident. If the matter is still subject to significant doubt, say so.

• Avoid editorializing, chatting, and commenting on other editors. The temptation to chat can be difficult to resist, but this is a reference desk. Focus on answering the question and take other elements (deficiencies of another editor's knowledge or style) to the Talk page (of the RefDesk or that editor). It's appropriate to correct factual errors in other answers, but avoid commenting on the editor.