Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General disclaimer is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Wikipedia:General disclaimer is permanently or indefinitely protected. Use {{editprotected}} on this page to propose an edit.

/archive

Contents 1 Libel 2 Read critically 3 Other disclaimers section... 4 Link to articles in other languages 5 External links 6 Unsigned comment 7 eu interwiki 8 Formatting and junk-purging 9 Raw code in page 10 Interwiki request 11 Trademarks typo 12 Headers should be bumped up

[edit] Libel

How can wikipedia be immune to claims of publishing libelous material? In US law, anyone associated with publishing libel (e.g. a company that runs a printing press) can be included in the suit against the author for enabling the libel to occur. --Sixtrojans 00:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Not Quite:

The Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA") -- 47 U.S.C. § 230 "plainly immunizes computer service providers like AOL from liability for information that originates with third parties. Furthermore, Congress clearly expressed its intent that § 230 apply to lawsuits" - Kenneth M. Zeran v. America Online, Inc. 958 F. Supp. 1124 (E.D. Va. March 21, 1997)(Ellis, J.) aff'd. 129 F. 3d 327 (4th Cir. Nov. 12, 1997), cert. denied, 524 US 937 (1998)

Clearly then, Wikipedia, to the extent material is added by third-party editors such as you and me, and not by employees or officers of the Wikimedia Foundation, would thus be immune to liability. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) 10:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Read critically

I strongly support a more prominent disclaimer. However, it doesn't have to be a negative thing. Even something simple like this would be a start:

Disclaimer Remember to Read critically.

And Read critically should say something like:

It is important to read all sources critically. Books, journals, encyclopedia and websites can all be informative. However, nothing can be considered 100% accurate.

This is important when reading Wikipedia. As anyone can contribute, errors do occur (although we have systems in place to minimize and correct errors).

That's just the seed of an idea, and I haven't really gone into what critical reading is, yet. But how does it sound as an idea? --Singkong2005 00:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I cannot think of a more appropriate subject for Wikians to discuss! If I had only paid attention during the many years of my education, I wouldn't have to spend so much time dealing with the same thing Paul Simon sings in the first two lines of "Kodachrome." "When I think of all the crap I learned in high school, It's a wonder I can think at all." 21st century technology serves to remind all of us of the urgent need for critical reading that all of us should be doing all of our lives. I get at least 6 bulk mails every day, asking me to claim my U.K. lottery winnings, helping some needy soul in Africa, or unauthorised access to "my" pay-pal account. I think critical analysis should be taught from pre-school through phD programmes. User:W8IMP 22:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other disclaimers section...

... should be removed. What does this have to do with wikipedia? It comes across as saying "our content may suck, but look, those other guys say that their encyclopedia are not perfect either". ---68.149.161.88 04:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It only makes Wikipedia's editors seem juvenile and embarrassed by the generally poor quality of content on this site. These perceptions may or may not be accurate, but just FYI, this is the impression from "Other disclaimers." Anonymous 198736 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Aux Contriere! How could a comparative analysis of disclaimers by "legitimate" sources, some of which are clear, and others obfuscational legalese, do anything but butress the need for all Wikians to behave responsibly? User:W8IMP 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to articles in other languages

Have been unable to insert a link to

[[tr:Vikipedi:Genel_sorumluluk_reddi]]

Someone who has the privilege to modify protected pages should do instead.

--Gundolf von Mauretanien 06:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Should we add something to the disclaimer to the effect that we also cannot make guarantees about the nature of externally linked content? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

NM. it looks like we already do. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned comment

Wikipedia uses at least a double measurement. Some authors are refused on the quasy-scientific basis, however, other authors are allowed to publish false information and it is impossible to find a way of correcting them. This is not an honest policy. I don't think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It serves other purposes, which are directly non-scientific.

left by 81.182.83.72 (Talk) noted by SatuSuro 06:24, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] eu interwiki

Please, add the next interwiki if it is possible: eu:Wikipedia:Lege oharra. Thanks.Berria · (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This has been done. Just zis Guy you know? 11:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting and junk-purging

I made an AN post regarding this four days ago; no replies. In any case, here it is again:

The disclaimers, linked to in the footer of every single document in the project (others too), are in a state of horror. I've (a) made formatting changes and (b) removed what I considered junk; the results are at User:PseudoSudo/Disclaimers/Wikipedia:General disclaimer (diffs: general, risk medical, legal, content). I'd appreciate if a sysop reading this could copy them over to their respective projectspace pages (changing {{../Template:Disclaimer-header}} to {{disclaimer-header}} and [[:Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]] to [[Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]]); I also invite anyone with concerns to comment here and/or reverse the copy if it's been performed.

Although it's an improvement, in my opinion the pages have quite a ways to go. A goal I'd personally like to see is one single disclaimer, free from rhetoric and irrelevent comments (wikilinks gone, too). ~ PseudoSudo 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, given the high visibility of the post, I'm interpreting the lack of interest as a lack of opposition. Would someone please copy over the pages? ~ PseudoSudo 00:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I've done this one, leave me a note what else wants doing. Just zis Guy you know? 11:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raw code in page

There seems to be a bit of raw wiki code at the top of the page:

{{../Template:Disclaimer-header}}

Isn't that supposed to get expanded into some sort of header? *Dan T.* 12:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. ~ PseudoSudo 16:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki request

Please add interwiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is:

[[sr:Википедија:Одрицање одговорности]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks typo

In the sentence, "Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders of any such rights and as such Wikipedia can not grant any rights to use any otherwise protected materials." "can not" should be changed to "cannot".

"Cannot" = is unable to.

"Can not" = is able to refuse.

Eclecticology 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headers should be bumped up

... one level, from h3 (===) to h2 (==). It's done this way in most all else of Wikipedia. æ² ✆ 2006-10-21t23:53z

Disagree with this; it would make the sections too short. The triple-equal markup is effectively being used for headers, not sections; writing

This is not an h3, but it serves the same purpose

would have a similar effect, but I'm fine with it as it is now. --ais523 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that it has been solved. NCurse _work 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)