Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer

Category needed

This fully protected project page, WP:Risk disclaimer, appears to need a category added. I found the category at WP:Risk disclaimer/doc while checking the edits of a vandal. Please modify the end of this page as follows:

• from this...

'''DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.'''

• to this...

'''DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION FOUND IN WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION.'''

[[Category:Wikipedia disclaimers]]

• WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE MIDDLE LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

Thank you in advance! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 05:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius! Joys! – Paine  06:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Addictive?

Why does it mention ADDICTIVE, how could wikipedia information be addictive? Is that a joke? --80.101.68.251 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This. Why "ADDICTIVE"?--Sigehelmus (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Helping keep wikipedia clean is addictive to me; it makes me feel like I'm accomplishing something. Mr. Spink ^{talk★contribs} 19:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2015

"CC-BY-SA" should be "CC BY-SA". The dashed form is what we use in the template names, but it's not actually correct. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the hyphenation given at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit request 20 February 2016

Add {{pp|small=yes}}. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done – why? None of the other disclaimers have it. Graham87 15:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Graham87:Pardon? Every other disclaimer has it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

My apologies; some were in noinclude tags. I've added it here. Graham87 07:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Addictive

This was mentioned before but why does it say that "INFORMATION FOUND ON WIKIPEDIA MAY BE ADDICTIVE" (paraphrasing)? Information can't be addictive, the previous discussion went nowhere. WikipediaUserCalledChris (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sj: edit EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 03:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Information can certainly be addictive: leaving you wanting more, Jonesing for another info-fix. The more compelling and refined the information, the easier it is to find pure veins of knowledge to scratch that just-discovered itch, the greater the risk.

And the Wiki can be addictive as a source of information-confection. To paraphrase Larry Lessig, "I opened Wikipedia, and suddenly an hour had passed, without my noticing." It is his only known weakness.

Of course, the addiction of editing is much greater, leading to elaborate schemes involving automatic timeouts, friends changing one's password, even migrating to other wikis for detox. But the risk of reading seems severe enough to merit a word in a list in a statement in the risk section of the disclaimer. – SJ  01:03, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

IMO this kind of joke cheapens and undermines the disclaimer and would give people grounds to say in court "I thought it was a joke page". Equinox ◑ 17:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. I know a guy who has shown me this page with this text, treating it with a sense of humour. A Wikipedia talk page is meant for discussing how to improve the article, not to vent your feelings about it.

At the same time, I make an edit request to remove the word "addictive" from the project page for a good reason Equinox gives. Fortunny (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the idea is not that the information is addictive, but that addiction may be a consequence of the use of the information (in the same way that information isn't dangerous, but danger may be a consequence of the use of the information). I am open to rewriting to better communicate that. --Bsherr (talk) 07:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I have never seen any disclaimer that isn't about addictive things that information can be addictive. All disclaimers should be written in formal language. I am open for any comments, whether for or against the removal of the word "ADDICTIVE" from the project page. Fortunny (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Edit requests are for when consensus is established. Please consider advertising the change elsewhere. Izno (talk) 04:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Should we remove the word "Addictive" from the disclaimer?

In this article following is written:

BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL OR ILLEGAL.

What we should do with it?

• A. Remove the word ADDICTIVE,
• B. Keep the word ADDICTIVE,
• C. Any other suggestion

12:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortunny (talk • contribs)

• B. I wouldn't touch this without consulting WMF Legal. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Conditionally A, but only if WMF legal is open to it. Otherwise, defer to them. Sdkb (talk) 03:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, needs to run through legal. "Addictive" does seem kinda weird here. I also wonder why simply "FALSE" is not included. Renata (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
• Hard remove regardless of legal's suggestion. The editor who added it didn't really have a good reason to do so and it certainly didn't meet the bar then for "passing through Legal".[1] --Izno (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

  There's no reason not to ping someone from legal; their input can only help. Jrogers (WMF), any thoughts? But yeah, Izno, given your link, I think we're safe taking it out if we don't hear anything, and if legal doesn't have a view one way or the other, I certainly concur that it's not needed. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

• Conditionally A if WMF legal is fine with it, as said above. From the link above, it seems like it might have been added mostly as an opinion (and possibly to be a bit tongue-in-cheek) rather than added as a factual/verified disclaimer. - Whisperjanes (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
• A The word "Addictive" in the disclaimer makes the disclaimer sorta seem like a joke. But it's up to WMF legal to decide. Some1 (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Note: Passing along from Legal: This is not something that they would review. WMF's disclaimer is covered by the foundation:Terms of Use. They don't object to the change, it's just not something they would approve either. Hope that helps. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 20:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
• Enqueued as an edit request, seems to be (a) not a WMF Legal worry, (b) unneeded. Will let this sit for maybe a week to attract patrollers (any other admin should feel free to process if you want). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Should "Sharealike" be changed to "ShareAlike"?

The text says:

regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC BY-SA)

The footer says "ShareAlike" instead of "Sharealike." Should the "Sharealike" here be changed to "ShareAlike"? I.hate.spam.mail.here (talk | contributions) 22:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 00:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2022 (Add "OFFENSIVE")

Change PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, UNETHICAL, OR ILLEGAL. to PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, ADDICTIVE, OFFENSIVE, UNETHICAL, OR ILLEGAL. since nowadays more people are likely to be offended by something they read online and it seems more inclusive of all the warnings people should have in the article.Lmharding (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC) Lmharding (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: This is actually a controversial edit, so you'll need to discuss first with other editors. Please open a new section here and start a discussion. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done I don't think this is necessary. I think we already have too much in that as it is. What now? WP:BRD - you are now at step 3, feel free to continue discussing below, if a consensus for change emerges please reactivate the edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 June 2022

I suggest changing the ALL CAPS sentences in this page to normal capitalization (except for the "USE WIKIPEDIA AT YOUR OWN RISK" line). This kind of emphasis isn't used on the other disclaimer pages, reduces readability, and does not fit the Wikipedia style. QoopyQoopy (talk) 16:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done OK. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:14, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

CC4

Since WP uses CC BY-SA 4.0, I think the 3 in "Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License" should be changed to 4. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 07:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Apparently we don't have the text of the licence on the wiki yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

In a way, we do. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ and https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ - apart from the big text at the top (Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) or Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)), the two are absolutely identical. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done – I changed it to Wikipedia:Text of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, which already existed. DanCherek (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 April 2024

The page currently says: "None of the authors, contributors, administrators, vandals, or anyone else connected with Wikipedia, in any way whatsoever, can be responsible for your use of the information contained in or linked from these web pages." Please remove the word "vandals"-the site certainly needs disclaimers to protect it from being sued due to vandalism, and vandals get significant protection from disclaimers without specific mention; however, they should not get any explicit protection, that level of protection should only be given to good-faith editors. Animal lover |666| 08:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow that's been there since added by an ip in 2003. I think this is safe to remove, bad-faith contributors are still covered as contributors. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)