Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General disclaimer is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

/archive


Contents

[edit] Libel

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

Not Quite:

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

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

  • Comment: You have misinterpreted "computer service providers". Wikipedia does not provide anybody with computer service, but only a service through the computer. It is not as if wikipedia is/was comparable to "AOL" in 1996. It is simply a website that WILL BE held liable under publication laws. The CDA is also no longer being upheld.User:Xander756(Xander756)
You are incorrect on both counts. The US courts have interpreted this provision of the CDA broadly, and only part of the CDA was struck down as unconstitutional.—greenrd 20:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
As an expert in law and jurisprudence, that is simply not true. The last provisions of the CDA have nothing to do with libelous material but only the limit the use of telecommunications for the purpose of harassment. I hope that one day this site is not in for a rude awakening. - Xander756 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Care to quote an authority? ←BenB4 06:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Read critically

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


Disclaimer
Remember to Read critically.

And Read critically should say something like:

It is important to read all sources critically. Books, journals, encyclopedia and websites can all be informative. However, nothing can be considered 100% accurate.
This is important when reading Wikipedia. As anyone can contribute, errors do occur (although we have systems in place to minimize and correct errors).

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

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

[edit] Other disclaimers section...

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

I agree. It only makes Wikipedia's editors seem juvenile and embarrassed by the generally poor quality of content on this site. These perceptions may or may not be accurate, but just FYI, this is the impression from "Other disclaimers." Anonymous 198736 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Au contraire! How could a comparative analysis of disclaimers by "legitimate" sources, some of which are clear, and others obfuscational legalese, do anything but butress the need for all Wikians to behave responsibly? User:W8IMP 22:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to articles in other languages

Have been unable to insert a link to

[[tr:Vikipedi:Genel_sorumluluk_reddi]]

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


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

I've added the link. Graham87 05:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

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

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

[edit] Unsigned comment

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

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

[edit] eu interwiki

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

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

[edit] Formatting and junk-purging

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

The disclaimers, linked to in the footer of every single document in the project (others too), are in a state of horror. I've (a) made formatting changes and (b) removed what I considered junk; the results are at User:PseudoSudo/Disclaimers/Wikipedia:General disclaimer (diffs: general, risk medical, legal, content). I'd appreciate if a sysop reading this could copy them over to their respective projectspace pages (changing {{../Template:Disclaimer-header}} to {{disclaimer-header}} and [[:Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]] to [[Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]]); I also invite anyone with concerns to comment here and/or reverse the copy if it's been performed.
Although it's an improvement, in my opinion the pages have quite a ways to go. A goal I'd personally like to see is one single disclaimer, free from rhetoric and irrelevent comments (wikilinks gone, too). ~ PseudoSudo 20:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Raw code in page

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

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

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

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

[edit] Interwiki request

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

[[sr:Википедија:Одрицање одговорности]]

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

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

[edit] Trademarks typo

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

"Cannot" = is unable to.
"Can not" = is able to refuse.

Eclecticology 14:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Just helping you out... You gotta notify the admins to fix this with this template: —Kenyon (t·c) 08:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Done. Kirill Lokshin 06:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Headers should be bumped up

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

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

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

would have a similar effect, but I'm fine with it as it is now. --ais523 12:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that it has been solved. NCurse work 20:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legal Disclaimer Holds No Water

Simply stating that wikipedia cannot be held liable for the breaking of various laws (I would assume slander, libel, copyright infringment, etc) by publishing its material does not give them any protection at all. They are offering the service of allowing others to publish AT THEIR RISK. It is same with dry cleaners. While it may say "Not Responsible For Lost Items" THEY ARE. The disclaimer is simply there to scare people off from actually doing it. It would be impossible to verify someone affiliated with wikipedia from someone not affiliated with them, so anything published on wikipedia, they ARE responsible for. User:Xander756 (Xander756)

By that logic, if someone goes up to an Oracle office building and sprays "JOHN DOE IS A RAPIST" on the wall, Oracle is responsible for John Doe's libel lawsuit. If you aren't a lawyer, you should not make such objections. If you are a lawyer... well... I suggest you do some reading. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 05:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

That is correct, they would be responsible. This is why graffiti is often cleaned in a timely manner. User:Xander756 (Xander756)

I don't want to be a pest, but it would be very helpful to know of an authority which agrees. ←BenB4 07:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki to id

Please add interwiki to Indonesian Wikipedia for the following Wikipedia disclaimers' pages.

Thanks. --ivanlanin ♫ •• 07:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 08:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian interwiki

{{editprotected}} Can you please add mk:Википедија:Услови на употреба to this page? Thnaks in advance. --B. Jankuloski 07:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Sandstein 20:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotect}}

Someone may like to add [[ar:ويكيبيديا:عدم مسؤولية عام]].--TheEgyptian 03:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Harryboyles 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Sentence

"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."

This sentence implies that honest errors do not occur in featured or peer reviewed articles. Page edit history is accessible, so it is clear whether a page was edited recently or not. This point should be clarified. --Birdman1 talk/contribs 20:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Put inter-wiki please to Yiddish language.

like this [[yi:װיקיפּעדיע:קלארשטעלונג]] tahnks--yidi 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

{{editprotected}} please add interwiki to RU:

[[ru:Википедия:Отказ от ответственности]]

--One half 3544 18:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

done. CMummert · talk 22:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop modifying this document

This disclaimer is used in Template:GFDL-with-disclaimers and Template:GFDL-self-with-disclaimers, and is an actual legal document that should be reprinted alongside every copy of the GFDL when republishing Wikipedia images. Every time a copyright holder chooses one of those tags, he or she is licensing his or her image under a copyright license that includes this disclaimer. If the image were published under a disclaimer that was not the same revision as when the uploader uploaded his or her file, that contract would be null and the republisher could be sued for copyright infringement. That's not good. Thanks, Iamunknown 20:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Oh, IANAL

IANAL. I could argue that if a user uses Template:GFDL-with-disclaimers, they should know that the linked disclaimer page is subject to minor change, and are therefore accepting the possibility of such minor changes. It's equivalent to the text "version 2, or any later version".
I comment because it's been suggested to simplify the disclaimer around PTSD and epilepsy by merging the two. Martin 18:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More visibility

I suggest to put the disclaimer link in the main menu. Currently the link is at the bottom and very difficult to find considering the disclaimer importance. --Greenprint 18:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

{{editprotected}} please add interwiki to IT: [[it:Wikipedia:General disclaimer]]--81.208.83.248 21:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

{{editprotected}} Please add the interwiki [[mn:Wikipedia:Ерөнхий татгалзал]] --ChinneebMy talk 10:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Y Done. Thanks, mattbr 17:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps lock

{{editprotected}}Please fix the "Wikipedia makes no guarantee of validity" message on the top. THIS TYPE OF HIGHLIGHTING looks terrible and is applicable only when it's impossible to use other ways. — Kalan ? 14:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to be in capitals to accommodate text-only browsers. Either way, it's standardized among the five disclaimers, and changes to these incredibly important pages will require (at least a little) discussion. You can try WP:VPR. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki

please somebody insert a yi interlink like this yi:װיקיפּעדיע:קלארשטעלונג thanks.--יודל 00:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Y Done -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki needed

Please add the following interwiki [[sc:Wikipedia:General disclaimer]]--elwikipedista 18:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Libelers are resonsible for libel; disclaimer is incorrect

{{Editprotected}}

This part of the disclaimer is incorrect: "None of the contributors, sponsors, administrators, 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 of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." Those Wikipedia contributors who commit libel on Wikipedia are responsible for the appearance of the libelous information. -- Jeronim 14:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] interwiki

{{Editprotected}}

Please add interwiki link [[ja:Wikipedia:免責事項]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.112.124.72 (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting the template.--121.112.124.72 (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Y Done.—Random832 22:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Graham87 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Traditional Knowledge

{{editprotected}}

Please amend the Wikipedia: General disclaimer#Trademarks heading to read "Pre-existing Intellectual Property" and insert 'traditional knowledge' into the existing list of pre-existing intellectual property rights '.. collective marks, traditional knowledge, design rights... etc.

While this proposed edit had not been widely discussed, a need for an edit of this kind has been identified in discussion held on Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Indigenous Intellectual Property Statement, and there has been some sympathy (and no immediate opposition) to the intent of the proposed edit. Bruceanthro (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the intent, but Im not sure how it works. This is a section covering types of right recognized in law, for which legal protection against use by others may apply. How exactly does Asutralian law (or any state law) protect "traditional knowledge" as being the "the property of [its] respective owners"? Unlike all the others, usually traditional knowledge doesn't have an owner. Same sort of concern, sentence 2 addresses legal restrictions on use. Is "traditional knowledge" protected against use by others by law, such that there are sanctions we must disclaim liability for breaching? Last concern on the same theme, "traditional knowledge" may vary by country. But this would be a disclaimer related to all "traditional knowledge" anywhere. Is it applicable?
Basically, unless there is specific knowledge, known as "traditional knowledge" in a given country, which has some form of legal protection against distribution, restatement, copying, or usage, its hard to see what its inclusion here can be. FT2 (Talk | email) 05:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


Update: Regarding the thread mentioned, I've looked at it.
  • The primary motive stated is to "somehow pay homage, recognise, and properly attribute the prior 'authorship' ... of local indigenous [information]". Thats purely a matter of source citing. We respect sources every time we cite them. We give them credit as legally required. But the disclaimer on legal uses is not the place to "pay homage" or "attribute". Its the place to state that Wikipedia disclaims liability in law for certain matters which it clarifies may have legal significance for readers and users of its content.
  • The secondary motive is to note the existence of "knowledge economies" and that there are traditional expectations of its use. However this is flawed from a disclaimer point of view. In any attribution, we cite the words of specific publications and writers. We do not cite "traditional knowledge" as a source (WP:OR refers) even if the writing we cite may be someones' writing down of traditional knowledge. The actual knowledge cited is published words written by a known author or publisher, and those words have the legal protection of copyright (of those specific written published versions we cite from), and hence the disclaimers regarding liability for how our users use the information written by us. But in fact we don't cite from the "traditions" at all, ever. Only from specific author's writings about traditions.
I understand this is not the desired answer. I'm open to discussion if others disagree, I'm purely commenting as a technical, legal matter on the disclaimers, here.
FT2 (Talk | email) 07:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Whoops .. just got caught in an 'edit conflict' .. this was what I was posting when caught by your last entry .. I will now read that (still posting what I had written if that's OK?)
Thank you FT2 (Talk | email) for your response to request for an edit. From your comments:
I see, perhaps, the first part of the above edit request (ie to amend the heading Wikipedia: General disclaimer#Trademarks to read Pre-Existing Intellectual Property) may in fact be appropriate (?) .. even if the remainder my request has faltered on some uncertainity as to whether or not peoples' 'traditional knowledge/s' actually qualifies as a formal form of pre-existing intellectual property "..protected against use by others by law .."??
I also see, now, the General Disclaimer (or at least the Wikipedia: General disclaimer#Trademarks) section) is intended by Wikipedia to be a strict legal liability only disclaimer !? (ie IF there is no formal State laws from which a legal action may be taken against Wikipedia users, THEN no mention shall be made within the disclaimer of possible beaches or offenses against long standing traditions, group expectations and lores)
Also, while I am definitely no lawyer, it would be my understanding editors agree to enter material into Wikipedia and licence free access and use of that material in accordance with Wikipedia:Text_of_the_GNU_Free_Documentation_License(GFDL). The 'disclaimer' then 'qualifies' the extent to which users/readers can truly rely on the GFDL to protect THEM from legal action .. Under these circumstances, it may be better for the disclaimer to act broadly (ie ANY hint of possible liability) rather than narrowly (ie ONLY certain legal liability.
In Australia, for instance, there is certainly court law, pluas statutory law, and legal precedents (cases won) protecting some (but not all) aspects of traditional knowledge (particularly secret/sacred knowledge!!) I may need to check Wikipedia for coverage of this material?!!
Around the world I undertand there are certainly many countries that have passed legislation formally establishing traditional knowledge as legal 'owned' (in tradition) intellectual property (again I'll have to check Wiki for coverage of this)
At the United Nations level I understand some aspects of traditional knowledge as an groups intellectual property right are framed within the Biodiversity Convention (including, I believe, a requirement for prior informed consent for use of traditional ecological knowledge.. or something to that effect); and the World Intellectual Property orginisation has been doing a lot of work in this area?!! (Again, may need to check Wikipedia's coverage of this?)
Also at the United Nations level, while I am definitely not familiar with the text, I have been given to understand from media coverage that the recently signed United Nations Decleration of Indigenous Peoples (sic?) .. recognised 'laws/lores' exercised and held by indigenous groups around the world, most often outside (or within?) more formal State law, as being legitimate laws for those State/Nations who've signed up to acknowledge and recognise (potentially making rights held within those laws/lores legally enforceable?!!)
Finally, I guess I should point out that within the current list of pre-existing intellectual property contained in the General Disclaimer I have sought to amend .. is listed 'personality rights' .. it would be interesting to know if this is a formal intellectual property right created by state/national laws around the world? (I'm not really aware of such laws in Australia, unless it is a reference to defamation laws??) If personality rights don't exist as a specific identifiable 'right' created in the laws of a number of states/nations, then, perhaps it should be removed (on the same grounds traditional knowledge might not be included)?? Bruceanthro (talk) 08:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Please do check these and let us know. The issue from Wikipedia's point of view is fairly simple. All our content is GFDL anyway (if it isn't then we delete it ourselves). So the disclaimer is there to disclaim legal responsibility for relying upon facts we state, information we present, and to ensure the user is made legally aware of the limitations of our work in publishing it (that we haven't necessarily checked its accurate or complete, and so on). Hope this helps? FT2 (Talk | email) 16:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. As per FT2 above. "Traditional knowledge" does not appear to be a widely recognised, legally protected form of intellectual property whose ownership Wikipedia needs to disclaim. Sandstein (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update - post(s) from my talk page

The following was posted on my talk page:

You will recall edit request made on the 'General Disclaimer' talk page, to insert 'traditional knowledge' into existing list of potential, pre-existing intellectual property rights that may be contained in Wikipedia articles?

You asked me to advise on outcome of my searches re: United Nations Declaration, country statutes, court law etc. Please now find below initial outcomes of those searches (for which I needed to go outside Wikipedia!), copied from posting on Village pump

Article 31 of the United Nations Declaration_on_the_Rights_of_Indigenous_Peoples proclaims the following regarding indigenous intellectual property-
"Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, as well as the manifestations of their sciences, technologies and cultures, including human and genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs, sports and traditional games and visual and performing arts. They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions"
Countries likely to us the english Wikipedia, with statues/legislation protecting indigenous intellectual property of this kind include (but is not limited to): Nigeria (Copyright Act 1990), Central African Republic (Ordinance No. 85-002 on Copyright (Central African Republic)) and Ghana (Copy Right Act 2005 )
Relevant court law in Australia include Milpurrurru v Indofurn Pty Ltd (1995), with courts recognising the 'cultural harm' indigenous plaintiff's suffered as a consequence of misuse of their designs on carpets, awarding damages, and implying communal ownership of indigenous designs; Foster v Mountford (1976), where the court granted indigenous plaintiffs an injunction to prevent the sale of a book written by an anthropologist (Mountford) containing confidential information given to the author in confidence.
The World Intellectual Property Organisation maintains a database of existing codes, guides, policies, protocols and standard agreements relating to the recording, digitization and dissemination of intangible cultural heritage, with an emphasis on intellectual property ..
In the end, though, all that was asked for of Wikipedia administrators, was to insert the words 'traditional knowledge' into an existing list comprised of things like "collective marks" and, yes, "personality rights" (still not sure what these are?). I have since suggested there is sufficient rationale for such a small edit of the general disclaimer, of the kind requested, and because there can be no harm (?) and there is no real reason not to make this edit .. then let Wikipedia community be more encompassing, and less narrow.

Hans Adler (talk) comments were understanding and useful.

Perhaps there may be one or more administrators who may be similarly understanding and perhaps agreeable to (re)editing the disclaimer, or alternative measure (perhaps a notice regarding indigenous content on relevant articles?)

Given the above, is there any chance you might reconsider, or perhaps recommend other/alternative action/ direction? Bruceanthro (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I commented there:

My addition was a comment on the legal nature of a disclaimer and a quick sanity check if the proposal had meaning legally. If the case makes sense legally then I'll support, if it doesn't have a good legal basis it's hard to. I've copied this note to that page, as it's best discussed there not here, and I'll catch you on that page instead :) FT2 (Talk | email) 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll reply here in a bit; I suggest we keep the conversation on this page so others can contriibute. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Thanx! Bruceanthro (talk) 23:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] minor edit

{{editprotected}} Can someone remove the extra brackets from "[[[[bg:Уикипедия:Условия за ползване]]"? It's bothering me that I can't do it! Thanks. tiZom(2¢) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done.—Random832 17:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page is hidden

This disclaimer page seems so irrelevant. One actually has to search for "Disclaimer" in order to find it, and how many average users do that? Am I missing a proposal somewhere to add the disclaimer link to every page? Now all people see are the fundraising quotes like "Wikipedia is the only reason I know what I'm talking about" and other propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.68.15 (talk) 08:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The disclaimer is at the very bottom of every page and AFAIK has always been this way (at least in the current layout). Graham87 08:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
C'mon. Wikipedia, like any other self interested organization/person will not publicize it's faults. It's human nature. I frankly don't expect very much in the way of forthrightness from this joint --72.93.80.5 (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interwiki link to Farsi wikipedia

Please add interwiki link for this page to it's Farsi counterpart, fa:ویکی‌پدیا:تکذیب‌نامهٔ عمومی. Ammar (talk) 04:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Done Graham87 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Resources