Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion for rewording 

message: 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 Wikipedia:risk disclaimer though not so garish and scary (which is what you want from a risk disclaimer) and not as technical as the Wikipedia: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 fr: and zh:
 > 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). 
 <devil's advocate>
 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)?
 </devil's advocate>
 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 Wikipedia:libel:
:The Wikipedia: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)
replies: text: Well some topics need more specific treatment, me thinks. --mav 09:14, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Link??? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia:Terms of use and Wikipedia:Submission Standards currently being drafted. — Alex756  talk 05:28, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another thing we need to disclaim but don't yet?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. — Alex756  talk 14:29, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]] 

message: : 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 wikipedia:terms of use goes live. Martin 01:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  terms of use 

message: : 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  voluntary association 

message: 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)
thread_title: Science disclaimer

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chilling Effects Clearinghouse: useful legal resource 

message: 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)
thread_title: More Prominent Disclaimer?

message: 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)
thread_title: Comparing with other disclaimers

message: Since I can't edit the page, here's the typo: "note that that the" should be "note that the" — Bill 22:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. jni 12:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Very minor, but a typo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  ''Free speech'' in non-US countries that ''do'' apply the UN charter 

message: 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. — 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? </sarcasm> 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.
— Nowhither 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever

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

message: :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)
thread_title:  Phrasing of main disclaimer 

message: 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)
replies: 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Page History 

message: :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)
replies: text: Done. jni 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Done. jni 16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Interwiki