User talk:Maio~enwiki/Proposals/Wikipedia as reference work

Dear Maio,

Glad to see someone else is worried about the issues of using Wikipedia. First let me say that it is always good to try and verbalize these things from one's own point of view. Regarding making it a policy to state that one should NOT use Wikipedia I think there are some people who would disagree with you. Why? Because some of the articles here are better written and more inclusive than some Encyclopedia Britanica articles? Sometimes the information available on Wikipedia is more up-to-date than information on a particular subject that can be found anywhere else. When I first got here last Spring I was suprised that there were few disclaimer notices so I started adding a few, now we haver the general disclaimer link on every page and as Warranty Disclaimers are allowed under the GFDL this means that we are all protected by these disclaimers. Do we need more notices? Not for anyone who views the site, we need a "terms of use" statement for those who are doing what I am doing right now (i.e. typing into the edit box) because there are elements of that relationship with Wikipedia that are not clearly defined in a limited number of documents such as the use of Wikipedia content. I shy away from using the words "terms of use" because it is misleading to only think about using Wikipedia as a source. Ultimately it is a place where people can contribute, and those are the users who need a terms of use, but since there is confusion, better keep that term distinct from just "using" the content of Wikipedia. Let me know what you think about this.

--&#8212; Alex756 00:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Regarding making it a policy to state that one should NOT use Wikipedia I think there are some people who would disagree with you. Why? Because some of the articles here are better written and more inclusive than some Encyclopedia Britanica articles? Sometimes the information available on Wikipedia is more up-to-date than information on a particular subject that can be found anywhere else.


 * I totally agree with you, some articles on Wikipedia are excellent. I was referring to using it as a reference work, in the sense of writing an article/project/research paper and putting a line where one states that they used Wikipedia as a reference. For example, if I were a college professor and a student of mine comes to me with a work referencing Wikipedia, I would put him a note that says "don't use Wikipedia as a reference work" and then point him to Wikipedia's No Guarantee of Validity Disclaimers.


 * In reference to the Terms of Use, well I must disgress a bit. I completely agree that they should be put for those who submit/edit articles/pages, but they also should be pointed out to those who just read it or navigate it; for the same reasons regarding the reference work. My concern was brought when I noticed certain medical articles that didn't have the medical warning of Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure that every Wikipedian's intent is to provide a background information rather than telling you what to do. But lets say that, for example, a medical article misses the warning. Someone goes read it, beleives it is truth and makes something that affects his health. The disclaimers were there stating no guarantee of validity, but there was not a Terms of Use that pointed out that by using (reading/navigating) Wikipedia you free the Project from all liability. He goes to court and by some miraculous way, the court appeals that he should be indemnized, for the simple reason that he never agreed to NOT use Wikipedia as a valid source.


 * All in all, IANAL but you are; I trust your judge on these. Thanks for your tremendous work on the project. :)


 * --Maio 03:32, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I think we basically agree, except that I am just suggesting we don't use the nomenclature "terms of use" because there are two kinds of use on Wikipedia that should be kept distinct. Just because we call it something else (i.e. copyrights and disclaimers for those who use Wikipedia content and Submission Standards for those who make Wikipedia content) does not mean we do not have terms that govern use. The word "term" is often used in contract law, as in "terms and conditions" and really the terms upon which one can use Wikipedia content are clear, the GFDL including warranty disclaimers as stated in &para; 10 of &sect; 1 of the license:
 * The Document may include Warranty Disclaimers next to the notice which states that this License applies to the Document. These Warranty Disclaimers are considered to be included by reference in this License, but only as regards disclaiming warranties: any other implication that these Warranty Disclaimers may have is void and has no effect on the meaning of this License.

So these are the terms and conditions upon which one can use the content of Wikipedia and we have these disclaimers next to the copyright notice. This needs to be kept separate and distinct from the contract between editors and Wikipedia, this is what the submissions standards are for. They are also terms of use, terms of use of Wikipedia as a tool for collaborative encyclopedia authoring, something that is very different than releasing the content that is created and does not need warranty disclaimers but terms of indemnification and warnings about submitting content that is in violation of law and such things. Do you think we agree after this explanation? Please do not defer to me just because I am a lawyer, that is not the way Wikipedia works and it is dangerous to sede one's opinion just based upon authority rather than reason. &#8212; Alex756 05:31, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)