Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline


 * Status 2005 August 21: Discussions from several locations have been collected on this project page. Discussions about about updating the main tagline showed strong opposition to change. A trial poll held August 2005 showed strong opposition to adding a second tagline.


 * Status 2005 August 25: An article has been added to the Wikipedia help page which summarizes who can edit or write Wikipedia articles. The article summarizes for new users how Wikipedia articles are created, edited, vetted, and corrected, and is an alternate solution to issues on this page.

What is being proposed?
Update the current top text on every page: to the proposed top text on every page:
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." --Current
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."             "All articles are user-provided." --Proposed

by...
 * 1) Leaving the existing MediaWiki:Tagline as is at the top left of every page.
 * 2) Adding a new MediaWiki:Tagline2 at the top-right of every page:
 * REFERENCE: MediaZilla change request

Other proposals

 * For those needing a place to post better alternatives than those given above, or a place to step back to a lighter perspective , please visit and comment on Wikipedia:Proposed updates to the Wikipedia tagline.

Current proposal highlights
The proposal has been updated so as to:
 * visually separate the text from the main tagline
 * not put links or italics in the text
 * not use the word "disclaimer" in the text
 * not use the words "collaborative process" in the text.

The proposal meets the key reason for proposing the change, which is:
 * DO advise readers that articles are user-contributed per WikiPedia encyclopedia vs. traditional encyclopedia style.

The current proposal addresses primary objections to earlier proposals which were:
 * do NOT scare off readers
 * do NOT change the traditional tagline
 * do NOT be too lengthy
 * do NOT distract from the main page content.

See below for all proposals to date and reasons for and against.


 * Version 15 is the primary proposal as of 08-15-2005.
 * Version 12 was the primary proposal as of 08-11-2005.
 * Version 1 was the primary proposal as of 08-04-2005.

PLEASE POST COMMENTS HERE
Interested contributors please comment in appropriate section below.

Be sure you have read what is being proposed, above, before commenting!

Please sign with ~.

Support FOR adding second tagline

 * 1) Superm401 | Talk 04:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Wyatts 13:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) De ryc  k C.  08:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Support for NOT adding second tagline

 * 1) Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Almafeta 07:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Thryduulf 07:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) [[smoddy ]] 10:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash; Dan | Talk 13:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Light current 14:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Omegatron 14:26, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Denelson83 15:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) We may be a free encyclopedia, but we do have standards, and readers oughtn't think that they're getting something second-rate. Rob Church Talk 15:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Angela. 18:56, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Naive cynic 19:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Stating that Wikipedia is "free" is sufficient to warn savvy readers of possible inaccuracies in content and to look for the disclaimer at the bottom of every page. The applicable principles are "TANSTAAFL - There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." and "caveat emptor - let the buyer beware". -- Sitearm | Talk 19:38, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
 * Simply saying "free" is not enough. I've seen many newcomers misinterpret its meaning (and there are many "newcomers" out there who visit once, take some information for a report or whatever, and never come back).  How many potential meanings are there?  A lot.  I think the tagline needs rewording, but I haven't seen a good, concise proposal.  Maybe we should do an opinion poll on how many people think a change is necessary and get their reasons first? - Omegatron 23:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an ambiguous experiment and as others have said, everything is on each page for a savvy reader to see what's going on. For unsavvy readers the average risk of relying on Wikipedia information is arguably no more than that of relying on other posted information on the internet. I have become persuaded by the enigmatic simplicity of the current tagline, like the smile of the Mona Lisa:) -- Sitearm | Talk 12:47, 2005 August 17 (UTC)
 * 1) I respect the work that went into this, and I have a leaning toward the issues that brought it up, but the current proposal is not good. "user-provided" is unclear and sounds bad, and putting it on the right, while ingenious, is not very visible, and requires developer assistance to implement. JesseW 21:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) "edit this page" is about as clear as it gets. &mdash; David Remahl 02:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Get It 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Andre ( talk ) 21:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) Generally, no. Unless it's something more tactfully worded than what has been submitted. I'd totally support 'the free encyclopedia on WHEELS!!!' though *marks down as april 1st idea*&mdash; Il&gamma;&alpha;&eta;&epsilon;&rho;   (T&alpha;l&kappa;) '' 01:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Flowerparty  talk 01:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 7) Neutralitytalk 02:15, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) Jpbrennatalk
 * 9) The edit this page is warning enough. We shouldn't scare users away. --User:Sweets (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) In six months or a year, the average internet user will know what Wikipedia is. In three years, the average person will know. In ten years, high school kids will struggle to comprehend the fact that there was once a time before Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 19:14, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! was described like that, until Google came along. Almafeta 16:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Short comments

 * Wait a second... I'm not exactly sure how are you going to implement it. Are you just going to go &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;? If that's the way the current implementation is going, I have no choice but to oppose. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 14:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You said: Are you just going to go &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;? This is a misread of the proposal which says: Leaving the existing MediaWiki:Tagline as is at the top left of every page. Adding a new MediaWiki:Tagline2 at the top-right of every page: REFERENCE: MediaZilla change request Sitearm | Talk 12:39, 2005 August 16 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I still disagree with moving it to the right. It presents technical difficulties CSS-wise (in order to float it to the right, it would have to come before "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"), furthermore, it is placed in an unobvious place (who glances to the right of the page?" If we adopt a solution, it should be simply an added statement after "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Finally, the feature described in 3102 is vaporware: there's no telling when a developer will get a chance to implement your "feature", and when it can get rolled out. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 16:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * You said: If we adopt a solution, it should be simply an added statement after "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Several options were proposed to add text stating the "user-contributed" nature of articles but there was much discussion not to change the traditional tagline. Putting the additional text into a separated tagline was the counterproposal. Do you support adding text stating the "user-contributed" nature of articles to the main tagline? Curious -- Sitearm | Talk 17:39, 2005 August 16 (UTC)


 * I thought we were voting for/against the top proposal, NOT whether there should be a second tagline ot not. This poll needs to be rerun stating precisely what we are voting on!! Light current 22:05, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Long comments
''Recently I posted some comments relevant to this proposal on Village pump (policy). It has been suggested that I move them here. I am a little iffy on how appropriate this move is, but I'll "be bold" and do it. If these should be somewhere else, then my apologies. Comments follow. &mdash; Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)''

"Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever"

I think there are issues behind the tagline discussion that need some closer examination.

I note that people are speaking in terms of a "disclaimer". Disclaimers are legal devices. The idea is to cut through the PR nonsense and (using legal nonsense) indicate precisely what is being claimed. Usually contractual issues and protection from lawsuits are the relevant concerns. I think this is an issue for Wikipedia, and it needs some serious thought; however, this does not seem to be what is driving this discussion.

What is driving the discussion is the problem that people come to Wikipedia, read it, use it, maybe even edit it, without a clear understanding of what it is. Some of them end up using information from Wikipedia in inappropriate ways due to these misunderstandings. Others, when they discover what Wikipedia really is, feel deceived and angry. Others get angry due to their misunderstandings. Quite rightly, we want to address these issues.

So, first, I want to point out that we cannot be responsible for other people's actions. Many, many people are in the habit of grabbing some source, getting info from it, and leaving, without considering reliability or other important issues. Many of these people use Wikipedia. What can we do about them? Nothing. If someone does not want to give any thought to the source of his information, then all the explanatory text in the world will not help. Let us remember then, that some things are the reader's responsibility, not ours.

Second, Wikipedia is a new thing; the world has never seen its like before. We call it an "encyclopedia", and it is, I suppose. However, it is clear that many ideas that people associate with encyclopedias are not applicable to Wikipedia. But there is no word or phrase in any language that will concisely and thoroughly indicate to newcomers what Wikipedia is. So: how can we quickly give people a clear understanding of all the principles and process behind Wikipedia? We cannot. It is a waste of time to try.

Third, there is an annoying tradition, especially in the U.S., that every time there is an issue with some product, we tack on a notice in its documentation somewhere. I bought a soldering torch. It came with pages & pages of lists of things I should be careful of. And I read and thoughtfully considered every one, of course, wouldn't you? &lt;/sarcasm&gt; This approach was invented by corporate lawyers as a way of stopping lawsuits. It is not about communicating information, and so it is not going to help us here. In short, don't think that tacking on gobs of little notices is going to eliminate everyone's misunderstandings about Wikipedia.

Fourth, there are people who are interested in checking their sources. Many of them do not understand Wikipedia, and could make better use of it if they did. Taglines & such are not going to help them. What might help is a short essay about who writes Wikipedia, and what approval processes an article needs to go through to be published in it. (Yes, I know, the short answer is "none", but we should still talk about the approval process, since that is what people want to know about.) The hard part is helping people find this explanation.

And that is what I think it is important to address. So, how about an actual concrete proposal: Instead of a tagline intended to communicate what Wikipedia is all about, how about a tagline that tells people where they can find such information, aimed at newcomers. Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head line: "Who writes Wikipedia?" Then make this a link to that short essay I mentioned earlier (or to a list of bullet points, or whatever). I'm sure someone can improve on this idea. Please do.

As I said earlier, I think disclaimers should be discussed as well, but that is a separate issue. Disclaimers are about contracts and lawsuits, not introducing newcomers and explaining things.

&mdash; Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yo---I know this is a tangent, but about the whole thing with product warnings, there are legitimate policy reasons for that. The point of warnings is to make an otherwise dangerous product safe.  And it better be safe, or the maker will be liable if something bad happens.  See strict liability, product liability, and Roger J. Traynor (the guy who created modern product liability law).  Otherwise it's caveat emptor, like in Third World countries where companies routinely sell fake infant formula and children's toys with ridiculously high amounts of lead.
 * Going back to your "who writes Wikipedia" idea, I think that it is an interesting proposal, but requires a lot more work (to find a carefully chosen set of words that would pique the most users' curiosity).--Coolcaesar 05:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Three things to say here. First, comments on your "tangent" thought about product liability are at User talk:Coolcaesar. Second, work on a explanatory essay has begun at User:Mamawrites/ProposalForMoreProminentDisclaimerLink. Third, as for the tagline, I suppose we can talk about that here. (My suggestion, again, was "Who writes Wikipedia?" Please improve on it!) &mdash; Nowhither 11:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Why this page was created
This page was created per How_to_create_policy.

The proposed tagline change is not a full-blown policy but is more than a simple tagline edit change, as it affects all pages and reflects on the community's sense of what Wikipedia is. Changes that have been attempted on the tagline have been reverted. Different changes are being proposed for different reasons. A collection and summary of discussions across the several areas seems needed. Please help by collecting input in one place.

Background
This proposal grew out of a discussion at the Village pump (policy). The concern was that many readers did not understand the differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. This is especially a concern when people may rely on the accuracy of a Wikipedia article, not realizing how Wikipedia is created. There is a disclaimer link at the bottom of every page, but most readers will not notice it and fewer still follow it up.

Articles published in traditional encyclopedias represent the "official" output of the organization, and have gone through some kind of formal review for accuracy and style. This does not guarantee perfection, but readers know that the publisher has made some attempt to utilize knowledgeable experts, carefully reviews any changes/updates, and stands behind its work. Wikipedia is different. Articles can be written by anyone, editors are not selected according to their credentials, articles can be changed often, and there is no formal approval process. On the other hand, Wikipedia relies on collaboration to improve the accuracy of articles (which is generally very good), content is more relevant and up-to-date, there is tremendous breadth, and it's free.

After some discussion, the proposed additional tagline was developed with the idea of incorporating it with the current tagline at the top of each page. The purpose is not to apologize for possible inaccuracies in articles, but to make the Wikipedia distinction clear.

Summary of proposed change versions

 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." --Current Version
 * DISCUSSION: No mention of user-provided, collaborative effort, or disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- written and edited by people like you." --Proposed Change Version 19
 * DISCUSSION: indicate source of amterial and invite new additions at same time


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia -- written by people like you." --Proposed Change Version 18
 * DISCUSSION: indicate source reliability and invite new additions at same time


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."  "All material provided free by users and cannot be guaranteed." --Proposed Change Version 17
 * DISCUSSION: warn no guarantee.
 * This would scare users away (see "reasons against #1" below about not using word "disclaimer" at top)
 * Wording is lengthy (see "reasons against numbers 4 and 7" below about keeping second tagline short and simple)


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."             "All material provided free but at readers own risk." --Proposed Change Version 16
 * DISCUSSION: Emphasise readers risk.
 * This would scare users away (see "reasons against #1" below about not using word "disclaimer" at top)


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."             "All articles are user-provided." --Proposed Change Version 15
 * DISCUSSION: Remove "collaborative effort".


 * "Disclaimer" --Proposed Change Version 14
 * DISCUSSION: Add disclaimer link to Navigation toolbar between "Help" and "Contact us".


 * "Disclaimer" --Proposed Change Version 13
 * DISCUSSION: Add disclaimer link to User toolbar between my "my contributions" and "logout".
 * Only logged-in, registered users would see the User toolbar, not readers from the general browsing public.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."             "All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort." --Proposed Change Version 12
 * DISCUSSION: Disclaimer text is separated from tagline.


 * "From Wikipedia." --Proposed Change Version 11
 * DISCUSSION: Drops all qualifiers. "Less is more." "Be bold." "Never complain, never explain."


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Proposed Change Version 10
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions anyone can edit. No disclaimer. "Anyone can edit" makes the mode of operation more prominent.


 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Proposed Change Version 9
 * DISCUSSION: Says "Welcome to" instead of "From". Mentions anyone can edit. No disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. All articles are user-provided." --Proposed Change Version 8
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions anyone can edit and user-provided. No disclaimer. "User-provided" makes the source of articles more prominent.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See disclaimer." --Proposed Change Version 7
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions anyone can edit and disclaimer.


 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See disclaimer." --Proposed Change Version 6
 * DISCUSSION: Says "Welcome to" instead of "From". Mentions anyone can edit and disclaimer. No links.


 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See disclaimer." --Proposed Change Version 5
 * DISCUSSION: Includes links to editing introduction and disclaimer.


 * "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." --Proposed Change Version 4
 * DISCUSSION: Includes link to editing introduction. No disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Articles are user-created in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer." --Proposed Change Version 3
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions user-created and collaborative effort and includes link to disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See disclaimer details." --Proposed Change Version 2
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions anyone can edit and includes link to disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details." --Proposed Change Version 1
 * DISCUSSION: Mentions user-provided and collaborative effort and includes link to disclaimer.


 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ON WHEELS!!"
 * DISCUSSION: Humor

Links to archived discussions regarding updates to the tagline

 * Wikipedia disclaimer


 * MediaWiki talk:Tagline


 * Talk:Main_Page#Invite_users_to_edit.3F


 * Wikipedia talk:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline


 * User_talk:Wyatts#Tagline_proposal


 * User_talk:Omegatron#Tagline_alternative.3F


 * User_talk:Sitearm#There_is_much_opposition_to_changing_tagline


 * User_talk:Angela#Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline

Contributers and articles that support adding the disclaimer more prominently

 * Contributers supporting adding the disclaimer more prominently on Wikipedia pages please: Cite example articles below, 2. Sign using ~
 * This is a Wikipedia Signpost article Wikipedia_Signpost/2005-08-08/In_the_news that references several news media sources that caution readers about the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, but that generally Wikipedia is very good. I think this is an excellent reason why we need to include a better disclaimer statement at the top of every article. Wikipedia is very good, but we need to let readers know that they should proceed with caution. --Wyatts 15:32, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See my comments on the talk page re: the action potential page. I support a more prominent location for the disclaimer. David D. (Talk) 04:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Summary of reasons FOR change
1: The proposal provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted.
 * This is one of the key reasons (if not THE key reason, based on the Village pump discussion) why the tagline should be updated. Readers need to better understand the nature of Wikipedia.

2: The proposal puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. (NOTE: Version 15 removes the word "disclaimer" from the text)
 * The current General disclaimer is quite thorough and linked to from the bottom of every page, however, it is not very visible.
 * It is important to mention the disclaimer more visibly so that (for example) elementary school students using Wikipedia are prompted to think about the quality of information provided on each page.
 * Also, people shouldn't have to read the fine print to understand the basics of how Wikipedia articles are created. A simple disclaimer statement at the top would avoid misunderstandings, and the details can be left to the General disclaimer.
 * The disclaimer is not a sign of weakness. It is a statement that says, "Think!". Every university hopes that the one lesson their graduates take with them is to think! Wikipedia would be helping to get that message across by making the disclaimer more prominent.

3: The proposal emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias
 * The current tagline IS short and positive and emphasizes a valuable aspect of Wikipedia, that it is free.
 * The current tagline does NOT emphasize that articles are user-contributed.
 * "User-contributed" advises readers that articles are different from a conventional encyclopedia.
 * The current tagline does not emphasize that anyone can contribute.
 * It does not explain the meaning of "free" (free as in beer, free as in GNU, free as in write about whatever you want, free as in intellectual freedom).

4: The proposal is short enough to include at the top of every page.

5: The proposal is a positive statement.
 * Emphasizes the collaborative nature of user-provided articles. Even though there is no formal approval, collaboratively edited articles are generally very good. (NOTE: Version 15 removes the words "collaborative process".)

Summary of reasons AGAINST change
1: It makes the disclaimer too prominent.
 * We don't need to link to the disclaimer, necessarily. We don't want to scare them off.  We just have to make sure new visitors realize the nature of the wiki:
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.


 * We should not lack self-confidence and feel we have to put a disclaimer on everything.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.


 * DISCUSSION: Adding the link to Introduction does help emphasize the collaborative nature of Wikipedia. But leaving off the link to General disclaimer doesn't inform the user that articles are not formally vetted, which is a major reason for the proposed change.

2: Tradition
 * DISCUSSION: Tradition may be changed to meet the needs of the day. (see tradition)

3: It doesn't scan/rhyme as well as "...Wikipedia ...encyclopedia."
 * The proposed alternatives are aesthetically awful.
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
 * DISCUSSION: A proposed variation is:
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. See disclaimer details."
 * It does not emphasize the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but it is certainly shorter, and it flows better that the original proposal since it is just one line.

4: It takes extra space at the top of a page (a 2nd line)
 * DISCUSSION: Maybe it could be shortened to fit on one line?
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Articles are user-created in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer.

5: It already says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." on the Main Page
 * DISCUSSION: Users coming in on direct article links (e.g. from Google searches) will not see this statement.

6: Links in the tagline distract from the article.

7: Less is more; Keep it simple, stupid.

8: It sounds too bookish.
 * DISCUSSION: "Bookish: learned, giving sources and authority". Yep, that's what's wanted.

9: The statement that Wikipedia is FREE is sufficient warning to readers to check the accuracy of its content. "There ain't no such thing as a FREE lunch." Even if something appears to be free, there is always a catch.

Links to where this proposal has been announced requesting comments
(If there is another location where it should be announced, please go right ahead and announce it there.)
 * Village_pump_%28policy%29
 * Village_pump_%28proposals%29
 * Requests_for_comment