Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer/Archive 1

Suggestion for rewording
The closest to this that currently exists is the Wikipedia:Featured articles process, but even the articles listed there may have been mercilessly edited shortly before you view them.
 * Substitiute 'changed to something inaccurate or poorly written'. Mr. Jones 11:00, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Unless otherwise stated Wikipedia and Wikimedia sites are neither endorsed nor affiliated with any of the holders... That should say  neither endorsed by nor affiliated with... Mr. Billion 15:54, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Missing Link???
This page does not link to anywhere, if anyone thinks it is useful, perhaps it should be linked somewhere? I just drafted it and it is similar to risk disclaimer though not so garish and scary (which is what you want from a risk disclaimer) and not as technical as the legal advice disclaimer. Alex756 07:44 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Copied from: WikiEN-L by User:Maveric149 Toby wrote: > The "international" (that is, non-English) Wikipedias > are also subject only to US and (I think) California law. > That's where they're located, after all. > (Although suggestions have been made in the past > to self-censor and  > in order to prevent the governments of France and the PRC > from declaring it illegal to *view* them, > which isn't exactly the same thing.) IANAL Ahem. If it is illegal for user x to do a and b in the country they are contributing from, then that user should /not/ do that!

General comments to all:

If it is illegal in your nation to do something that would otherwise be legal in California, then you are still taking a personal risk if you break your own nation's laws. The simple fact that the server is in California does not shield you from the laws of your own nation.

But what is legal for Wikipedia to have on its server in San Diego is really only a matter of California/United States law (as Toby points out).

I don't think the first part of this point gets stressed often enough.

Of course, what is "appropriate" is a different matter and is largely dictated by consensus and standing policy (both Wikipedia wide and language specific).

 It is here where an interesting question arises; should particular languages have /added/ restrictions across their own language version of Wikipedia that go beyond California/US law in order to make texts written in French, for example, legal to have on a server in France?

Wouldn't that make the texts more useful to French-speaking peoples (well, at least the French speakers in France)? 

I would argue that this is a dangerous idea because then the laws of potentially every nation on earth could have veto power over what we have on  Wikipedia just to make it theoretically possible to have our text usable as  is and hosted on a server in each of those nations. The result of that would be massive censorship in order to meet the lowest common denominator.

IMO, we should keep things simple and only concern ourselves with these two things (as far as the legal issue goes):

1) What is legal for any one user to do in the nation they are submitting from. 2) What is legal to have on our server in California (this applies to  everything we all submit; all text/media must be legal under California/US  law).

Both of the above factors limit what we each can individually submit. So for example; a user writing from Germany has to respect restrictions set forth by German law and US law in what they submit while a user writing from Australia has to do the same in respect to Australian and US law.

Hm. This concept should be on a general disclaimer or something....

-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav) User:Maveric149 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@wikipedia.org http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
 * This is a useful comment. Alex756 12:24 15 May 2003 (UTC)

Found this on the talk page about libel libel:
 * The general disclaimer should address three main areas. The Gnu license - no liability for accuracy -  Talk pages are not encyclopedic. I thought this was already being done. -Stevert

I think we should just have one disclaimer for everything... ehh I dunno. Evil saltine 08:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Well some topics need more specific treatment, me thinks. --mav 09:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

content disclaimer is still being linked to from a few places, I've delinked it as it is redundant with the general disclaimer now in place. &#8212; Alex756 18:27, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

--

Perhaps we should add that links from Wikipedia to external websites do not constitute endorsement of those sites? -- The Anome 14:33, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suggest to exchange the first two sentences.

The currently second one: WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY expresses everything an average reader needs to know about the content of the page, and it's much easier to parse (for a tired foreigner like me, at least) than the currently first one: PLEASE CAREFULLY READ THE STATEMENT BELOW BEFORE LEAVING THIS PAGE which is void of actual content. And "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY" makes for a better motivation for further reading the page. (Same remark on the other disclaimer pages...)

--FvdP 22:16, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'd just suppress the "PLEASE READ CAREFULLY" like I did on Wikipedia_talk:Risk_disclaimer:
 * it's annoying to have to read this before knowing what the page is about.
 * "CAUTION: Use Wikipedia at your own risk" is such a better catch phrase
 * 99% of the readers just don't need to "read carefully" everything that is on the page. All we want them to know, is here that Wikipedia can't guarantee validity, with for the interested (or paradoxically skeptical) reader a few reasons why.

(BTW, english is not my native language and I'm puzzled by the 2 possibles (in my eye) meanings of "statement": is "statement below" just the next sentence ("WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE..."), or the whole page ? This puzzlement is yet another obstacle to my reading this page, even though it's a small one, it's an unneccesary one too.)

By the way, all these disclaimer pages are mostly redundant. It seems to me that Wikipedia_talk:Risk_disclaimer would be good enough for all purposes, and it puts the emphasis on the most important dangers.

--FvdP 22:41, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The "Please Read" statement is gone. Our pro-bono lawyer Alex may object, and if so I encourage him to reinstate the line. --mav 07:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find very bothering having link to this disclaimer on top of every page. Can some jurist clarify whether we are obligated to have it or not? (on most sites there is small copyright notice at the bottom and it's normal) If we can, I think we should leave only the bottom one. And I suggest merging it with copyright into one short page that would say: I think that this short page would answer all basic legal questions. Then there should be more links to particular 4 topics.
 * 1) Wikipedia is...
 * 2) That's why WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTY so ask your doctor/lawyer...
 * 3) You can distribute contents of Wikipedia under GFDL, that is you should ...
 * 4) When you add to Wikipedia you agree that everybody will be able to edit and redistribute your addition, so all legal questions are on you.

Please move this suggestion to its right place. ilya 10:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another thing we need to disclaim but don't yet?
Many sites now use Wikipedia for content. They do so happily, thanking their lucky stars that it is GFDL. However every day people submit copyrighted work without permission. We try very hard between us to remove it all but can't be sure we always succeed. So it is possible that someone will copy our material and by doing so actually (unwittingly) copy other people's copyrighted material. They could get in hot water for that and are naturally going to want to point the finger back at Wikipedia (and maybe at the original contributor). Do we need to do anything about this? Do we currently? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:03, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * This is a good point. There is some mention of it here and there, but perhaps there should be some mention of it in the Terms of use and Submission Standards currently being drafted. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756  talk]] 05:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Any chance that after all of these warnings about the reliability of the information on wikipedia (e.g., "misuse of the information here has been known to cause your monitor to catch fire" - to steal a famous warning from the X Window System documentation), that some kind of positive statements could be added, say "the material here is provided because is believed to be useful, and the editors of Wikipedia request any errors found to be brought to their attention"? I believe I've seen this language used elsewhere in a similar disclaimer of reliability. -- llywrch 05:28, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
First, IANAL, and this is not legal advice.

This page says that Wikipedia is being maintained in reference to the protections afforded to all under the United States Constitution's First Amendment and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. The UDHR is a statement of principles and not a binding document; it provides no protections whatsoever. I'm therefore going to strike this clause from the sentence.

There is a treaty that implements the principles in the declaration, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is what the Human Rights Council uses as reference. The United States is a signatory, but doesn't consider the treaty as being "self-activating". That is, the principles in the ICCPR don't automatically apply, without supporting laws passed by the federal or state governments. So it's questionable whether there's any point in mentioning it, either.

It may be reasonable to replace the reference to the UDHR with a reference to the ICCPR. --ESP


 * Oh, hey, apparently I'm not going to strike the clause; the page is protected (and not just by a declaration of principles!). --ESP 01:41, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * As you rightly state the ICCPR does not really have the force of law in the U.S. and is therefore legally irrelevant. The UDHR was mentioned because of its general approach to human rights. The language "being maintained in reference to" is a way to state that Wikipedia does not want to violate the generally accepted principles of human rights, that's all. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 14:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Trademarks
It has been suggested at VfD that MediaWiki:Oscars should be deleted and a general trademark disclaimer should be placed here instead. Opinions? Tuf-Kat 03:47, Mar 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * 100% agreement from me. --mav 04:19, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I added the following:


 * Any of the trademarks, service marks, collective marks, design rights, personality rights or similar rights that are mentioned, used or cited in the articles of the Wikipedia encyclopedia are the property of their respective owners. Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the GFDL licensing scheme. 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. Your use of any such or similar incorporeal property is at your own risk.

Any comments, suggestions or changes welcome. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 15:15, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I still do not have a firm belief that trademarks are distributable under GFDL, but that issue aside, I think this is definitely a good idea.
 * Is there currently any policy regarding different types of trademark uses on English Wikipedia? For example, things like,


 * Posting an image which is just bare trademark.
 * Posting an image of, say, people wearing a T-shirt on which there is a trademark, or a landscape in which some trademarks can be seen.
 * I also assume that the issue taken care of by that text is not only trademarks, but things like product design? I think there could be a legal problem if a licensee used GFDL'd image of a person to make fun of his face, or to mislead people as if there is an endorsement (say print that image on some package of a commercial product). And the text is to state that liabilities are on the side of licensees, and not the contributors, editors, admins, or the Foundation. Tomos 18:47, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * The GFDL is really dealing with copyright, not all intellectual property rights so there is no contradiction with disclaiming other IP rights within the GFDL framework. I know that there has been at least one complaint about using a trademark on Wikipedia, but if an article is accurate (i.e. it states that one use of a term may be a trademark, for example) then the use is informational and should not create a problem for a trademark owner. In an article one can always use &trade; or &reg; symbols to make it clear that the word, phrase or logo is a trademark for informational purposes.  Trademark infringement and passing off violations only occurs when you are using this information for some commercial purpose. As the GFDL allows for derivative works that could be used commercially a disclaimer (while probably nnot necessary) is a good idea so that people don't get the wrong idea about what rights they are being granted. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756  talk]] 06:37, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Alex.

I personally share your understanding of GFDL, that it has to only with copyright, and not other rights (IP rights or otherwise). Downstream users, for example, do not have the right to defame somebody by modifying an article of a person. GFDL does not explicitly prohibit it, but that does not mean it gives permission. (But the problem is I don't know have solid evidence for this interpretation.)

But I suppose some trademarks (like corporate logos) are also copyrighted works they are creative expressions of ideas fiexed in a tangible medium. If that is the case, things like uploading an image of a corporate logo might be in violation of copyright, when fair use defense can not be applied. So I suppose this disclaier would cover things like a name of a product (trademarked) apprearing in an article, or image including a trademark along with some object, but not an image which is nothing but a trademark. Is that right? Tomos 03:01, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, a corporate logo may also be a trademark and have copyright. If used for informational purposes (i.e. fair use) then such use is not infringement of the copyright. Thus a small thumbnail of a MLB logo in an article about the team is not going to be infringement (you will also see such logos routinely on television news programs, the news programs use the logos to identify the teams, not to sell their products). So it is covered by fair use. Everyone screaming that it is a violation of the GFDL, IMO is wrong, because we are creating an encyclopedia here, if someone is going to use fair use material in a different manner that infringes the copyright owners economic interests we have an argument that they are not copying our fair use version, but are copying directly from the copyrighted materials. In this case there is no violation of the GFDL by Wikipedia, only by those who are attempting to evade copyright of others by trying to cloak such rights in Wikipedia. Note that this analysis does not mean that Wikipedia can only be used in non-commercial ways, there are many encyclopedias that are commercial that use all kinds of logos and symbols as part of their informational exposition. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   05:51, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a related discussion on Wikipedia talk:Logos going on at the moment. I'd be interested to see some informed input. Lupin 22:43, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Quote with emphasis added: "Their use here does not imply that you may use them for any other purpose other than for the same or a similar informational use as contemplated by the original authors of these Wikipedia articles under the GFDL licensing scheme."

To me this says anything Wikipedia does with trademarks, you can do too, almost granting permission to use trademarks in the same manner as any contributor, as though Wikipedia were the source of precedent on this issue. Obviously, a contributor could accidentally misuse a trademark, in which case Wikipedia does not in fact have the right to perpetuate this misuse, even under the licensing scheme. The use of trademarks on Wikipedia shouldn't imply anyone could use them for anything at all. Davilla 13:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

terms of use

 * This information is being given to you gratuitously and there is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikipedia

This will need to be changed when terms of use goes live. Martin 01:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

voluntary association

 * Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, that is, a voluntary association of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge

The phrase "voluntary association" here may have some quite surprising copyright implications. Perhaps it should be reworded to something like:


 * Wikipedia is an online open-content encyclopedia, edited by a variety of individuals and groups who are developing a common resource of human knowledge

What do you think? Martin 02:09, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me as a change. Best to dodge anything which sounds like "association", "collective" or similar, since those words can have or be argued to have copyright implications which can conflict with the GFDL grant people are told they are making. And your version is shorter and that's good as well:) Jamesday 02:16, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Science disclaimer
I think that in addition to the medical disclaimer, Wikipedia should have a general disclaimer about description of chemical, physical etc... reactions. In the past, there has been a number of teenagers (as well as adults) who caused great bodily harm to themselves or to others by trying to make "home chemistry" reactions which they knew enough about to start, but not enough to know the precautions and dangers. For instance, the page on nitroglycerin describes an extremely risky reaction for preparing this explosive. You don't want an angry parent to sue Wikipedia because his 16 year-old son tried to prepare high explosives in the basement. I've just added to ice cream the description of a method of preparation using liquid nitrogen, which I think should be harmless under normal precautions, but which has potential issues. I don't want to risk legal trouble. David.Monniaux 10:29, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Financial advice
I think WikiPedia not giving any form of financial advice is also a good idea--BozMotalk 10:58, 7 May 2004 (UTC) (moved from user talk:Angela)

Chilling Effects Clearinghouse: useful legal resource
Chilling Effects Clearinghouse is a joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, University of San Francisco, and University of Maine law school clinics. It covers a lot of trademark issues, intellectual property issues, online rights and more, with lots of citations and authoritative suggestions. Thought I'd mention it... Catherine - talk 21:26, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

More Prominent Disclaimer?
In light of the recent AP news perhaps the link to the Disclaimer should be more prominent on every page and the main page should have it spelled out instead of all that gibberish that is currently there. --unsigned


 * Yes!! Thank you!! I'm tired of people criticizing Wikipedia for having false information, and I know you are, too. Jimbo, please put a very large, uneditable disclaimer at the top of every single freakin' page, saying something simple to the effect of "Warning! Anyone can put whatever they want to on this page!" Have it in 50-point type. No offense, but please don't be stubborn about this. Wikipedia is too "cute" with its disclaimers. Not putting one on every page is silly. Wikipedia will remain just as good and grow just as fast as it otherwise would, or even better and faster, if we put a disclaimer like this on every page. Joey Q. McCartney 02:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed disclaimer
I propose that all pages describing a potentially harmful activity that the reader may like to try (chemistry experiment, sport etc...) should carry a disclaimer linking to a long version such as this proposal. In the past, there has been a number of people, generally older teenagers, who have harmed themselves or others trying to do stuff they had read about in a book (like making explosives). Even if Wikipedia is not legally liable for this (and this even remains to be seen, depending on the jurisdiction and how courts rule), there's a definite risk of adverse publicity. The media can well blow such incidents out of proportion: "Online encyclopedia a cookbook for explosives", "Youngster experiments as described in online site, loses both arms", "Tolley, Voos, Chunkee and Bodkin trash Paulersbury in crazy TNT experment" etc... David.Monniaux 07:46, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * There's already a general disclaimer on every page. Isn't that adequate? - Nunh-huh 08:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC) (click link at bottom of page to read it) -- Nunh-huh 08:22, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I know, but we already have specific disclaimers for medical and legal issues. You will tell me that any person with common sense would not do a dangerous chemistry experiment based on some vague Web encyclopedia content, but the same applies to medical and legal advice. David.Monniaux 13:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's my impression that the specific disclaimers were/are not to be used. Though I suppose they keep getting re-added because they seem like a good idea to people. - Nunh-huh 21:14, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect that anyone who wants to make explosives will try to do so regardless of any warnings. A specific disclaimer would probably be more aimed at protecting Wikipedia than its readers - a question of legal liability, and of publicity. From a publicity point of view, I could see a short notice being more useful than the proposed long screed: obvious and easy to understand. On the other hand, the boundaries of "dangerous activities" are rather ill-defined, so it's not clear how many pages might end up with disclaimers. If sports are to be tagged, then almost anything can be. --AlexG 17:01, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The point is not to warn people for their own benefit, but to warn them so that they or their family cannot sue afterwards, claiming they have been misled into doing something dangerous.
 * I was not thinking of regular sports, but of the more extreme activities. David.Monniaux 07:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That is why there is a disclaimer link at the bottom of every page. The lack of a disclaimer in an article would make some people think that the article is somehow more safe than an article with it. Who decides what if safe? All the per-article disclaimers were removed after each page got one. That is how it should be. --mav 07:14, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with mav. See also Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer where this was discussed before. Angela. 21:47, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * In practice any sort of warning may not be enough. We implicitly invite minors into WikiPedia (by not prohibiting them) despite some of its content, and they could follow links straight to pages and they may well do something irresponsible without reading the disclaimer. There is a strong argument for an unsuitable or dangerous content label but perhaps in practice that would just make such things easier to find. --BozMo|talk 10:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Perhaps such notices about risks would be better as part of the meta data that Article validation will generate. People could tick a box to say if the topic was unsuitable for children, or contained risks, etc, in the same way they can tick the box to say the article is suitable for print. Angela. 22:08, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be a very good idea --81.168.34.114 06:26, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comparing with other disclaimers
For comparative purposes, selected disclaimers from sources often regarded as credible can be found at non-Wikipedia disclaimers.

I have noticed an increasing number of sites putting disclaimers on external links. I struggle to believe courts would be silly enough to make someone liable for the sites they link to but other people obviously think this risk is real? --BozMo|talk 14:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very minor, but a typo
Since I can't edit the page, here's the typo: "note that that the" should be "note that the" &#8212; Bill 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 12:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More friendly disclaimer from a major mirror
This article was derived fully or in part from an article on Wikipedia.org - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the wikipedia encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

Free speech in non-US countries that do apply the UN charter
Presently the "General disclaimer" page contains following sentence (end of 6th paragraph):


 * The laws in your country may not recognize as broad a protection of free speech as the laws of the United States or the principles under the UN Charter, and as such, Wikipedia cannot be responsible for any potential violations of such laws should you link to this domain or use any of the information contained herein in anyway whatsoever.

There is a problem with this formulation, i.e. not with the fact that Wikipedia (or: the Wikimedia Foundation) takes no liability for possible offenses under foreign law (I completely agree with that) - the problem I see is that some countries that follow the UN charter are nonetheless forbidding the publication of certain statements (e.g. revisionist statements about the holocaust; openly racist messages, etc...). The interpretation of when a message is to be interpreted as "revisionist", "racist", etc... might also be slightly different, depending on country.

The argument whether such laws, giving in a way certain limits to free speech, would be a ..."less" broad protection of free speech as the laws of the United States,... etc is in my view futile, and not to the point (or at least: American POV).

The present formulation fails to make clear to the reader that he can be held responsible for infringements in certain countries that ...recognise as broad a protection of free speech as (...) the principles under the UN charter.

Then I don't even mention copyright limitations that might be different in certain non-US countries (e.g. did you know that the works of Erik Satie presently in the Mutopia Project are "Public Domain" under US law, but still copyrighted in France?).

I propose the sentence above would be replaced by:


 * The laws in your country may add other limitations, even if following the principles of free speech under the UN Charter, but as such, Wikipedia cannot be held accountable for any potential violations of such laws should you link to this domain or use any of the information contained herein in anyway whatsoever.

--Francis Schonken 08:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Right. Additionally, it may be pointed out that the application of copyright laws by the United States may actually result in the United States having less free speech than some other countries in certain respects. David.Monniaux 09:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this disclaimer is not to advocate whether the status of civil rights in the US is better than in some other country. I can cite numerous examples of US laws that violate civil rights, such as the Patriot Act and the DMCA. Please remove this advocacy and replace it with the more neutral version by Francis Schonken. Etz Haim 12:34, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This Discliamer Inadequate
This discliamer is inadequate. It implies that it is no less than the disclaimer assoicated with a conventional encyclopedia such as Brittanica. It attempts to imply that its authority is therefore as good as other encyclopedia. This willfully deceives the public. There are repeated attempts throughout Wikipedia to trump up its authority and I consider this to be socially irresponsible and ultimately dangerous to the public.

Clear and bold disclaimers need to be visible on every page of Wikipedia and in bold friendly "Don't Panic" letters on the front page.

Have fun with Wikipedia - don't take it so seriously and don't mislead the public.

Steven Zenith 05:58, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, baloney. Just look at what it says buried all the way down there in the 2nd and 3rd sentences: "Its structure allows anyone with an Internet connection and World Wide Web browser to alter the content found here. Therefore, please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise necessary to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." Please show me where Britannica says anything of the sort. &rarr;Raul654 06:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * But then the disclaimer continues in an attempt to mitigate and, I will argue, mislead the public into accepting that the authority is as great as Britannica - as you attempt to imply here. -- Steven Zenith 19:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * We're not as good as Britannica, we're better... in our own special ways. But definitely less reliable, especially for people who don't know how to doublecheck the accuracy of a particular article.  I agree that we could use a more prominent disclaimer notice in the default site skin.  But our disclaimer is, of all parts of the site, one place where this weakness of Wikipedia's is emphasized.  +sj  +

Refactor
On noticing that answers.com links to this page from every one of /its/ pages, I refcatored the page. New template header, section headings, removal of some redundancy and collection of like paragraphs one after another. Another regular monitor of this page, and a legal eye, should look over it. +sj +

Extremely minor error
Under the sub-header "Jurisdiction and legality of content," there is the sentence "The Wikipedia database is stored on a server in the State of Florida in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law." The word "Wikipedia" should be italicized. ‡  Jarlaxle   19:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Archived discussion from Village pump
(Moved here as I felt it best place to archive, move it on if not. Hiding talk 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC))

Wikipedia disclaimer
I was very surprised to learn recently that wikipedia was NOT an encyclopedia like those we are all used to using. Most people will not check for your disclaimers before looking for information, and they presume that what they find are well-researched facts. I only discovered this myself when I came across some information listed for a topic that was clearly opinion and was, in fact, gossip. You are therefore responsible for contributing to the spread of gossip and false data. Despite your disclaimer, you ARE presenting yourself as an ecyclopedia website, knowing that people will be deceived.

The very least that you can do is to have a heading on EACH page that appears, which says, "Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee of Validity." It would also be more correct of you, and certainly more ethical, if you called yourself, "Wikipedia, the user-created encyclopedia."

Linda Estabrook User talk:66.159.201.20 11:54, 2005 July 15

RESPONSE: Linda, would you cite the article that contains opinion and needs clean-up? We are collecting examples to support a proposal to make a disclaimer more evident at Wikipedia:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)


 * "Real" encyclopedias disclaim accuracy, too. The three leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - Britannica, Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias forget about the disclaimers. - Replies to common objections


 * We really should make it a teeny bit more obvious, though, for newcomers. Add a "written by users like you!" at the top of the page or something.  I am all about Eventualism and the convergence of the wiki towards Absolute Truth, but we aren't at Eventually yet, and vandalism and hearsay mean newcomers should check references and article history before believing everything.  We are, most of the time, a much better source than half the crap floating around the internet, but some of our articles are far below the quality of a "real" encyclopedia (that wouldn't have any information on that subject at all).


 * That said, you should always check references for important things, even for stuff that's in paper encyclopedias, as they have errors, too. - Omegatron 17:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * You'd be surprised how many errors are present in the common text books too. David D. 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

A newcomer's response. While objecting to the escalation from, "I found one item of gossip" to "you are deceiving the world", I have been surprised by the ubiquity of wiki hits on Google. Since so many more people will now be accessing wiki material, perhaps Estabrook is correct in advocating a little navel gazing. Megatron's defence that wiki is a better class of crap than that served up by other internet sources is hardly reassuring and we should all recognise that most users will never trouble themselves to check the references against the possibility of vandalism. So perhaps the answer is that there should be a roving commission to survey material and, when it finds articles that are sound, it should lock them. If a future editor believes any of the locked articles to require revision, let that be argued before editorial access is allowed. In this way, there is a slow accretion of core material that can justify the label of encyclopedia. Peripheral and evanescent material can be allowed to come and go as fashions change, with or without warning notices. -David91 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Good luck. People come up with proposals like this all the time, and probably a lot of people like them, but it will take a lot of work to get any kind of consensus to change something so fundamental to the idea of wiki.  Much more realistic is to at least acknowledge in an obvious place that the pedia is user-written, and that only some of those users are experts. - Omegatron 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * I came across many incorrect statements in the biology related pages. This was brought to my attention by students using it as source material. I agree there needs to be a stronger disclaimer on these pages.  Some of the mistakes are subtle but some 'facts' are just wrong.  Given how many online reference sources are harvesting wikipedia information it is scary to think how much misinformation may be out there on the internet.  I do not think this means wikipedia is bad.  It has huge potential and corrections will eventually get the quality up to scratch.  But given the fact that there is wheat and chaff on these pages a disclaimer is warranted.  David D. 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please, when you come across these, either correct them or at least make a note on the relevant talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * See? When we read the Wikipedia we don't assume that everything is correct.  We are both reading to learn and reading to edit, constantly on the lookout for things that might be wrong or vandalism or need cleanup.  We approach all content with healthy skepticism.  If we don't approach the Wikipedia as a completely authoritative source of information, we need to make sure newcomers don't approach it that way and then blame us for deceiving them and never come back.
 * See MediaWiki_talk:Tagline - Omegatron 17:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

But, on two occasions, when I attempted to change pages (in my opinion for the better) I was met with hostility and abuse. I rapidly withdrew. Those pages remain unacceptable (in my opinion). So, please, let us not assume that placing warning messages as headers will resolve inherent behavioural and content problems. -David91 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Then there would seem to be controversy regarding the article. Could you specifically tell us which pages these were (perhaps also linking to your edits in the history). I'll look into this. &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not touting for a campaign of "Be nice to the old guy." Everywhere, I see reports of edit wars, sometimes over really meaningful issues such as what to call English counties or disputes over puncutation which get blown out of proportion by those with a non-consensual approach to life. "Looking into my editing history" is not going to add significantly to a pattern of behaviour that is well-documented and clearly inhibiting the growth of encyclopedic standards. The reason why I have not become involved in comparable disputes is that, at the first sign of abuse, I walk away. A plague on the causes of all those who will not iterate through reasonable debate towards some generally accepted point of view. -David91 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Wikipedia should include some type of disclaimer on every article page. I really like Wikipedia and try to contribute when I can. However, as a person involved in research, I would not advocate using Wikipedia per se as a reference; but, I would certainly recommend starting with Wikipedia in performing research. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource with many advantages over traditional reference works. Wikipedia is also very up-front about how it is created and its limitations. Unfortunately, most people will not realize the difference between Wikipedia and a traditional encyclopedia. Of course, no matter what you do, there will always be a few people who don't read the disclaimer. That said, I think it would be good to include a disclaimer anyway so that the majority of readers will get the idea. --Wyatts 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Besides Wikipedia having an (existing) overall disclaimer, each contributer (including me) should have a disclaimer on her contribution to an article, and each article should have a disclaimer acknowledging where information may have other interpretations (e.g., scientific principles, evaluations of an artist's work quality and "themes", etc.). My son reads Wikipedia a LOT to study science and math and this led me to get an account. Fortunately he knows you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fortunately many of the articles list references so that information can be checked. I have discovered inaccuracies (e.g., ranking of largest ports in the world out of date). To be rigorous you have to look stuff up and compare, which process Wikipedia helps. But Wikipedia certainly is not a definitive authority on any of its articles. Nor is any other encyclopedia or online references.

So it's caveat lector!

Sitearm 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No encyclopedia is perfectly accurate, of course. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is somehow not as good as other encyclopedias. (I believe Wikipedia is superior is many ways.) Instead, I am suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is different from traditional encyclopedias. I think the disclaimer should inform people of the difference, not be an apology for any inaccuracies (since all encyclopedias have inaccuracies.) 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. People quickly learn which publishers do this well (or not) and hence establish the reputation of the publisher. People can then confidently reference such traditional encyclopedias in their research. 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. I might not reference Wikipedia directly, but I would certainly start there for research. So, with all that said, if there is ever going to be a disclaimer, then we need to start throwing out suggestions. It should be fairly short and emphasize the difference in Wikipedia, not an out for any inaccuracies. Here is something to chew on:
 * "All Wikipedia articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy."

I'm sure this could be improved (in a collaborative manner.) --Wyatts 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I found the General disclaimer, and it is blunt and comprehensive. No doubt here: "Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee Of Validity." So that leaves saying something about why Wikipedia is special and why it's a good encyclopedia to use (Why Wikipedia is so great) or saying nothing at all and letting the work and its use speak for themselves. I'm sure this disclaimer issue will come up in the near future, say, when someone blames something on an article read here. The short disclaimer suggested by Wyatts is a good size to put on every page (is that what we're aiming for?), but its gist is covered in the existing full-size disclaimer page. How about "caveat lector et scriptor" ("let the reader and writer be cautious") to keep it short and add class? Hey, it might just work. Sitearm 06:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * May I politely disagree with your suggestion to use Latin? Many elementary and high-school students who use the Wikipedia do not speak Latin. The same would be true for some nonnative speakers of English. --Mamawrites 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The General disclaimer certainly seems to cover everything, but, as noted by Sitearm, I am suggesting something short that could go on every page. After looking hard, I did in fact see that the general disclaimer link is at the bottom of every page, but few will actually notice this and fewer still check it out. The line at the top of every article that says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", might be a good place. Maybe something like:
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopdia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy. See disclaimer details."
 * --Wyatts 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Mamawrites, I am OK with not using the Latin. It's a play on "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware"), but yes, it would just confuse things. Main point is, I agree with Wyatts to put something at the top of every page in addition to the tiny disclaimer link at the bottom. I feel uneasy at the statement about "not subject to formal approval..." and it's covered in the full page anyway. How about:
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

Sitearm 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. How do we submit what we agree on as a proposal to be added?

Although I wanted something about "not subject to formal approval", I must admit that it sounds too negative, and I could not find a good way to word it. I agree with the version from Mamawrites:
 * "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

It has the following points in its favor: It is short enough to include at the top of every page; it emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias; it is a positive statement; it provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted; and it puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. As to how to submit, I looked at How to create policy. The more I look, the more it seems that this discussion should be transferred to Village Pump (proposals). A policy is more like what to do in certain situations. This is a specific proposal to modify the general article template (but not a bug). But, even if it is moved, I'm not sure how to get it out of the proposal stage to be implemented. Perhaps we can set up a separate page like Disclaimer proposal? I think we will need to recruit one or more administrators to eventually set up a vote and then get it to those who can actually implement the change. --Wyatts 14:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * oops, I didn't coin that suggestion; Sitearm did. I support it, though! Mamawrites 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's add that disclaimer proposal page and link to it in the village pump proposals section. Your last paragraph is an excellent summary of the proposal and benefits. Would you be willing to start the page with your material? That would cover summarizing the proposal and the "for" reasons / benefits for doing it, for others to comment further. Things I can think of to add to the proposal page about why NOT to do this are: it takes extra space at the top of a page (probably a 2nd line); it takes some programmer time to edit a template to change this. This will give an "against" section for others to comment further. (P.S. It was me with the revised version of your version. Sorry for the confusion about addressing Mamawrites at the start of the paragraph.) Sitearm 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed the tagline to:
 * From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
 * the other day, and it was reverted pretty quickly (of course). Go talk on Mediawiki talk:tagline if you think it should be changed.  I think it should be changed. - Omegatron 19:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I made a new proposal page at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline and posted notices here and here. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:29, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to go. I'll start posting discussion at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. --Wyatts 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The primary proposal has been updated. Contributer's comments and support still requested here. -- Sitearm | Talk 19:48, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever
I think there are issues behind the tagline discussion that need some closer examination. My comments are rather lengthy, and so I have deviated from the usual procedure and created a separate subsection for them. I hope no one is too terribly offended. (By the way, there seem to be many discussions on this topic. If there is a better place for my comments, could someone please point me to it. &mdash; Nowhither)

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 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Could we please add a link...
... to Who writes Wikipedia? Thanks in advance. Mamawrites 08:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing of main disclaimer

 * or anyone else connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever can be responsible for the appearance of any inaccurate or libelous information or for your use

"connected with Wikipedia in any way whatsoever" is typical over-the-top laywerspeak. Why not simply say "connected with Wikipedia"? It is strictly equivalent. Wikimedia should be mentioned though, to cover the board.

Shouldn't "can be responsible" better read "can be held responsible" or "is responsible"? I'm not pretty, but I can be pretty.

Also, I disagree with the whole statement as written: surely an author who knowingly adds false information to Wikipedia is and can be held and should be held responsible for their actions. Our disclaimer cannot override basic tort law.

So here's my attempt:


 * No one except the originator can be held responsible for inaccurate or libelous information on these web pages; no one can be held responsible for the consequences of your use of any information contained in or linked from these web pages.

AxelBoldt 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Question re quotation from the Britannica disclaimer
Below is a direct quote from the project page for this discussion page

---start quote---


 * While other encyclopedias, unlike Wikipedia, are professionally peer reviewed, they still do not guarantee their content.


 * The britannica.com disclaimer (from the site hosting the Encyclopedia Britannica Online):
 * "YOUR USE OF BRITANNICA.COM IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK."

---end quote---

I had a look at the linked terms of use page and could not see the quoted sentence. Can someone tell me where it is? I note that this is a protected page ... does this mean that the content is more "true" or more "verified than other pages. I am extremely interested in these issues because my students are currently editing wiki on "emerging learning environments" and we are grappling with these issues while deciding whether to open our wiki for public reading and or writing. --Peter 05:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Please respond here with indented text


 * It's no longer in the current version of disclaimer on their website. Their previous version contain that sentence and you can see it on Non-Wikipedia disclaimers, or a copy of the whole page on http://web.archive.org/web/20050308223513/http://corporate.britannica.com/termsofuse.html. Note the current version still contain everything else (namely "PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND" -- KTC 21:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And regarding this page being protected. In this case, it's for legal reason to maintain the integrity of the site disclaimer. See Protection policy for why certain pages are protected. -- KTC 21:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Page History
Around this statement: Even articles that have been vetted by informal peer review or featured article processes may later have been edited inappropriately, just before you view them. you should mention MediaWiki's page history feature. - Yuhong 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Old interwiki requests (2004, 2005)
Can some sysop add Chinese interwiki "Wikipedia:&#20813;&#36131;&#22768;&#26126;" here? Thanks! --Samuel 20:28, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Some sysop please add these interwiki links to the page: da:Wikipedia:Generelle forbehold no:Wikipedia:Generelle forbehold thanks. -- Christian 17:59, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. Evil saltine 18:13, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Could You add a interwiki link to Polish Wikipedia (pl:Wikipedia:Zrzeczenie si&), please.


 * Done. [[User:Alex756|&#8212; Alex756 talk]] 02:25, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

please can any one add "ca:Viquipèdia:Avís legal" to the page Plàcid 22:59, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. --mav

Please add sv:Wikipedia:Allmänt förbehåll as a link to the General disclaimer at Swedish Wikipedia. Den fjättrade ankan 18:50, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Please add hu:Wikip%C3%A9dia:Jogi_nyilatkozat. --grin 16:32, 2004 Mar 11 (UTC)
 * Both done, sorry for the delay on the Swedish one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:53, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This looks like the Japanese edition. A-giau 23:45, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please insert a interlanguage link for ro: to ro:Wikipedia:General disclaimer
 * Done. &#8212; &copy;   Alex756   05:44, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Please add more interwiki-links to the "project page":


 * For Dutch Wikipedia (nl:) I propose: nl:Wikipedia:Algemeen voorbehoud ( nl:Wikipedia:Algemeen voorbehoud ) --Francis Schonken 09:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 11:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * For the Spanish Wikipedia es:Wikipedia:Limitación general de responsabilidad --elwikipedista 15:39, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 11:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please, add pt:Wikipedia:Aviso Geral.
 * Done! jni 12:10, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

And fr:Wikipédia:Avertissements généraux too. -Gabriel Beecham/Kwekubo 18:16, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 09:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add a link to the ongoing Vietnamese translation too. Please use the following code, since this wiki doesn't yet support Unicode:

vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn chung

Thanks! – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 05:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 09:07, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please add el:&.—Geraki 2005-05-17 T 08:03 Z
 * Done. --mav 15:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

please add

el:& &


 * Done. --mav 15:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki
ceb:Wikipedya:Mga pagpasabot is the Cebuano translation of this page. Please add the appropriate link. Thanks! --Bentong Isles 13:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Done. jni 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please add the Finnish interwiki link fi:Wikipedia:Vastuuvapaus? Thank you. – Zeal 20:13, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. jni 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

A German article has been started, can be found under de:Wikipedia:Haftungsausschluss. Add it, if you protect the section. -- Amtiss, SNAFU ? 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. jni 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add this one too: tr:Vikipedi:Genel sorumluluk reddi