Return to Answer

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)

[TL,DR: general reference is “wikipede it”, not “google it”.]

I support a general reference close reason, though we need to be careful about the potential for abuse. Having the closer indicate what the reference is is a minimum barrier.

However, I don't quite agree with Borror0's flowchart. I think that Google should not be used as a tool to determine whether a question is a legitimate Stack Exchange question. Confronted with a Google question, I'm willing to embrace the non-Googlers.

The motivation for closing questions as “general reference” is that you do not need a human being to answer this question, because the answer can be found in the obvious place. (Hence the question is a waste of time for the asker, for the answerers and for future readers.)

If I want to know the meaning of an English word, I'm not going to look it up on Google, I'm going to reach for an English dictionary. If the word is too obscure for my dictionary, or if none of the definitions make sense in the context where I found the word, then I'll reach for other tools. Ok, so I google, and I find that according to www.urbandictionary.com it means “penis”. Hmm, maybe I'd better ask on English Language & Usage Stack Exchange.

If I want to know who a science fiction character is, I'll first look it up on Wikipedia. If I don't find what I want, I might use Google and find the wiki of a particular SF universe. But these wikis are not always reliable, and they are often written in an in-universe perspective that makes them hard to follow if you aren't a fan of that universe. So I might ask on Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange.

If I want to know how to get around a foreign city, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. In places with multiple transit agencies, a Google search could easily lead me to learning only about one of the agencies. So I'll look the city up on Wikitravel. If I don't find any answer, I might ask on Travel Stack Exchange.

If I want to know what a unix command does, I'm not going to start by looking it up on Google. I'm going to bring up its manual. Commands can differ from unix variant to unix variant, and that way I'll get an answer that's accurate for my system. If the command has no manual, or if I don't understand something in the manual, then I might ask on Unix & Linux Stack Exchange.

So… to qualify as a general reference, the place where the answer is found must meet a number of qualifying criteria:

• The reference should be one that a person asking such questions should know about, not some random site found through Google.
• The reference must be sufficiently trustworthy, the asker must justified in having some confidence in its reliability. (The reference manual, not Joe's blog.)
• The sought-after information must be found in that reference in an obvious place (i.e. the question is about X, and the answer is in the entry on X in the reference). (“What does function F do?” is a priori a general reference question, “What function can I use to do X?” is not.)
• The sought-after information must be reasonably comprehensible. (“I've read the reference article on X and I'm lost, is it suitable for purpose P?” is a perfectly reasonable question.)