What is a "General Reference": Wikipedia? TV Tropes? Urban Dictionary?

Question

I ask because the question "https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/10659/what-does-tldr-mean#comment111627_10659" has been closed as general reference, but the only links I see are:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Too_long;_didn%27t_read
• http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tl%3Bdr

The wording in the FAQ is:

• general reference
  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.

Am I the only one who finds this a wee bit vague? I'm pretty sure that would exclude Urban Dictionary, but I'm less certain about Wikipedia:

• Can it definitively answer anything?
• What is a "standard internet reference source"? (What RFC(s) are these defined in?)

And what about other sites, for example TV Tropes? Where is the line drawn?

Answer 1

A standard reference is a source (book, website, what have you) that is specifically designed to provide a certain type of information. So, if you're looking for a definition, a dictionary is a standard reference source; if you're looking for a synonym, a thesaurus should be your first destination; etc. So yes, Urban Dictionary is a reference source for current slang terms; TV Tropes is a black hole ahem, sorry source for looking up reoccurring metaphors in popular media; and Wikipedia is a reference source for things like birthdates of famous people, the list of rulers of a country, or a basic overview of how radios work.

Whether these sources are accurate is a different question entirely. The point is, you shouldn't ask a question on EL&U if there is a type of reference source designed to answer that kind of question, where if you had bothered to look in said reference source, you would have found your answer quickly and easily.

Using the tl;dr example, if this question occurred to you and the first thing you did was ask on EL&U, your question would be quite rightly closed. If instead you looked first on Acronym Finder and didn't find an answer, and you mentioned this in your question on EL&U, then closure wouldn't be quite so automatic. And if you looked also in Urban Dictionary and found a definition that doesn't seem to fit the context where you encountered the term (say some joker defined it as "the law;delicious reading" or something), and again, you mentioned this fact in your question on EL&U, then your question would no longer be general reference.

Note that search engines are not standard reference sources, at least not for the type of information that people can ask about on EL&U. Search engines are a way to look up web pages, and web pages are off topic here.

Answer 2

My general rule is that I must find the answer in 2 out of 3 standard dictionaries/thesauruses (I usually check Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and the OED). Beyond that, I tend to err on the side of caution and not close it as general reference (other close reasons are still eligible). I do not personally consider Wikipedia, TVTropes, or other wiki sites as standard references, since their answers cannot be said to be definitive.

Answer 3

Yeah, it's fair to say that Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary are not definitive resources, but look at the question for a moment. If I Google define TL;DR then every single result has the same answer (so long as the result answers the question). I think it's fair to assume this is not a coincidence, and should have been the asker's first port of call.

Even though there is no specific "standard internet reference source", the fact that every site that defines tl;dr gives it the same meaning means that this is a general reference question.

Answer 4

I agree it's vague, but is that such a bad thing? If you get five people to agree that it's general reference, does it really matter if they all have precisely the same definition? :)

I'm less concerned with whether the source is "standard" as I am with whether it's "authoritative". Can it be trusted given the nature of the question?

I do not consider Wikipedia to be "authoritative" about anything, though it's often a good starting point for finding a reputable source.

Many sites that might not be considered "standard" could still be "authoritative" given the nature of the question. Urban Dictionary might be an authority on slang, and (less likely) TV Tropes on TV stereotypes, for instance, though I would not consider either one authoritative in most circumstances.

Answer 5

It is a little vague, simply for the fact the closing reason should adapt for different Stack Exchange sites.

The more specific part is, "designed specifically to find that type of information." What should be probably be added is that the link given by the standard internet reference source should be for a trusted source.

For example, I could use Google to find the meaning for an acronym, but if the link takes to a site reporting funny (invented) definitions, I cannot close the question because that link.

About Wikipedia, simply for the fact it can be edited from everybody, it is not a definitive resource; as a matter of fact, there are articles in Wikipedia that are marked as needing a reference (with the famous "[citation needed]" phrase).

Answer 6

So far as I'm concerned, a question like What does "TL;DR:" mean? doesn't even need an "Answer" that people can vote on and thereby gain rep points. I'd just give the relevant information in a comment (together with a link, so OP could confirm what I said).

I mean - look at it! Currently 30 upvotes for the question, and over 70 in total for four answers! Does anyone really think it needs to stay open in case someone else comes up with a better answer?

I think we should be far more willing to close "general reference" questions as quickly as possible. If you can easily (and definitively) enlighten OP in a comment, do so and vote to close. If you see someone else has already done this, add your closevote, and don't upvote a trivial "Answer".

The site has far too many users with only limited knowledge of English, falling over themselves to upvote the few questions they do know are correct. Without wishing to seem elitist, I think all this achieves is to devalue the rep system.