Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial comment

I've drafted this preliminary risk disclaimer and if anyone has any comments I'd be happy to discuss them in detail. I've made it short and relatively untechnical so that most readers will be able to understand that they assume the risk when they use or rely upon Wikipedia information. --- Alex756

It's really professional. Should we change the ALL CAPITALS to SMALL CAPITALS. It's how it's used in the non-legal books I've seen. Quite asthetic. Or would that be oppose to the purpose of the document? --Menchi 03:25 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I put the two main notices in small caps, but it probably will look better in the inline text. I think the all caps gives the SHOUT better than SHOUT in the large text, is there any way to make the larger notices sans serif? it is really an asthetic issue as long as it gets people's attention quickly then it serves the legal purpose of giving them NOTICE that they can't avoid to read. Alex756 06:02 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Without the serif? You mean as in Arial font? --Menchi 06:10 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I've tried looking at this with various sizes on my IE6 browser with 1280x1024 and now (with your suggestions, thanks!) even at the smallest text size under the view menu the large titles are VERY READABLE. Alex756 06:38 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

It's true, some people enjoy reading puny font size, perhaps because their eyesight is so superb. Well, now this oughta take care of them! Now they can't blame us saying that they didn't see it clearly! --Menchi 06:47 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

This is a really bad idea. First it looks very unprofessional to place SCREAMING TEXT at the head of an article, second this page will not be linked from many page that is theoretically "should" but once people know of this page's existence then the lack of such a statement will indicate to them that they should trust the Wikipedia article. This potentially opens us up to lawsuits. It is also a very frowned upon practice to link to Wikipedia-specific pages from within articles since doing so reduces the transportability of our text (meaning any downstream third party user would have to remove all these Wikipedia-specific references). And on top of all that, the text of this page is far too alarmist sounding - it makes Wikipedia look like a dangerous place that shouldn't be trusted at all. This is an overblown mischaracterization.

What is needed is a real general disclaimer linked in the uneditable part of each page where the copyright notice now is. --mav 23:04 20 May 2003 (UTC)

I don't agree with the above comments. The risk disclaimer stated that it was proposed. As well, it is only where DANGEROUS activities are described, not to be used on all pages, and yes, I think IT SHOULD BE VERY PROMINENT AND ANNOYING. As far as your argument that if it is not there it means that they can trust the page, this is also not a very good legal argument. First of all, this is a wiki, anyone who uses it knows that they can edit it.

As far as it being non-professional, what kind of profession is being spoken about? If the writer has an professional qualifications, please cite appropriate authority. Disclaimers are supposed to be annoying, they are supposed to get your attention and they are supposed to tell you to be careful, obviously such an article should not be put on pages that deal with feudalism, but DEFINITELY on pages that deal with autoerotic asphyxiation, bundgie jumping, parachuting, etc.. IT WOULD BE UNPROFESSIONAL NOT TO DO SO. IMHO.

General disclaimers are not necessarily a good idea. Many people do not read them because they are so general and they are just sitting on the bottom of the page. The ideal solution is a click through disclaimer, but I doubt if YOU guys would agree to that. If YOU don't want to put it on the boilerplate page and make it available and someone gets killed, YOU will get sued, not me, and now on top of it there is a history of YOU deciding to take it off when it was offered to YOU. If it is an option and it is available and someone does not use it and then it is the problem only of the people who have edited, not the so-called general wikipedia community (which seems to be about 20 people as far as I can count). This is not as open a community as first appears. USERS BEWARE! Alex756 02:58 21 May 2003 (UTC)

1) if it was proposed then why was it on the boilerplate page? 2) Who defines dangerous? A fundamentalist Christian would think it very dangerous to a person's soul to read our articles on evolution. 3) Disclaimers in the real world of printing are placed behind the cover of the publication ; they are not placed at the head of selected pages. Therefore a link next to our copyright notice is more than enough - esp. if it is linked from every page (which all have the potential problem of reliability due to the fact we are a wiki). 4) It is not immediately apparent that our website is world editable and most people don't even know what a wiki is (I didn't before I landed here and in fact I used Wikipedia as a reference several times before finding out that I could edit the articles here). 4) If they already know anybody can edit any page and place anything on it then there is absolutely no need for a disclaimer at all. Imagine the laughter in the courtroom when the plaintiff explains that he knew this but relied on the information anyway - come on, readers have a responsibility to minimize any foreseeable harm that may come to them (IANAL, BTW). 5) A general disclaimer should be a jumping-off place to our various specific disclaimers. 6) This is the type of thing that should be discussed on the mailing list and decided there before being implemented. 7) The only page the boilerplate was placed on as of yet was on the Goatse.cx. Now I'm not an MD but I'm pretty sure looking at that image is not foreseeablely fatal in any way. 8) An open community doesn't mean we let everyone do anything they want. --mav

1) I don't know, I did not put it there, I just found it there. 2) the Courts define dangerous, mostly judges, sometimes juries, insurance companies influence what dangerous is in legal terms (we are talking about legalities here, no?) 4). Do they know what wikipedia is? I do not think this is a given, if someone hits a page and does not know what Wikipedia is they may just read the text, do you want to encourage people to hurt themselves? 5). Maybe you think everyone is going to spend hours reading disclaimers, I doubt it. 6). Who wrote this "should" where is the rule that it "should" be discussed. How come no one over the last two months that I have posted this has ever directed me to the authority behind the should, remember this is a wiki, anyone can post anything, if you censor it, then perhaps there is a legal recourse there against people who censor things, have you ever thought of that? 7). I have found it placed on at least a half dozen pages as of the writing of this comment, obviously other people see it has merit, are you going to censor them? 8). Exactly, if people are going to post dangerous information the community should point to the person who might just come onto Wikipedia unaware that they are reading an article about risky stuff, movie producers have been sued for putting dangerous stunts in movies that children have then tried to copy. I could not agree with you more, Wikipedia is not a free for all. I am glad we agree. Alex756 18:54, 3 Aug 2003 (UTC)

removed text: On some pages it may be appropriate to link (1) to a risk disclaimer or (2) legal advice disclaimer:

1. On the page you wish to use this risk disclaimer, please link to the following text:

'''[[Wikipedia:risk disclaimer|PLEASE READ THE WIKIPEDIA RISK DISCLAIMER FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY.]]'''
i.e.: PLEASE READ THE WIKIPEDIA RISK DISCLAIMER FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY.
or the shorter alternative: '''CAUTION: [[Wikipedia:risk disclaimer|USE Wikipedia AT YOUR OWN RISK!]]'''
'''CAUTION: [[Wikipedia:risk disclaimer|USE Wikipedia AT YOUR OWN RISK!]]'''
i.e.: USE Wikipedia AT YOUR OWN RISK!
or the even shorter alternative: : '''[[Wikipedia:risk disclaimer|RISK DISCLAIMER]]'''
i.e.: RISK DISCLAIMER

2. For pages on legal topics, link to Wikipedia:Legal advice as follows:
Please note: [[Wikipedia:Legal advice|Wikipedia does not give legal advice]]
i.e.: Please note: Wikipedia does not give legal advice

I'm about to add a link to Wikipedia:General disclaimer to the bottom of every page. Thus is will not be necessary to add the ugly Wikipedia-specific text above to individual articles. --mav 05:00, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Please link this page to ro:Wikipedia:Disclaimer despre riscuri.

Please link this page to ca:Viquipèdia:Declinació de responsabilitat per perills

Also it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer_sul_rischio. Also I want to request the replacement of

Do not rely upon anything found at Wikipedia

with

You should not rely entirely upon anything found at Wikipedia

--[[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 02:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Risk disclaimer template

The following was moved from "Template talk:RiskDisclaimer" which was later deleted.

I created this template after noticing that pipe bomb, which happened to be on the front page (about Centennial Olympic Park bombing), had the following ugly line at the end:

Disclaimer

I looked for something less ugly, and found a better one at edible mushroom. Instead of simply copying it, I thought it would be better to turn it into a template.

Feel free to make it better, I still think it's a bit ugly.

Also, I don't know if it would be better at the top (as it was on edible mushroom) or at the bottom (as it was on pipe bomb). Since I copied from edible mushroom, I put it on the top.

Also, should the other disclaimers have templates?

cesarb 22:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, please don't add these disclaimers. We already have a disclaimers on every page (twice on every page in the non-stanard skins). This was discussed before at Wikipedia talk:Risk disclaimer and I agree completely with what mav said there:

"This is a really bad idea. First it looks very unprofessional to place SCREAMING TEXT at the head of an article, second this page will not be linked from many page that is theoretically "should" but once people know of this page's existence then the lack of such a statement will indicate to them that they should trust the Wikipedia article. This potentially opens us up to lawsuits. It is also a very frowned upon practice to link to Wikipedia-specific pages from within articles since doing so reduces the transportability of our text (meaning any downstream third party user would have to remove all these Wikipedia-specific references). And on top of all that, the text of this page is far too alarmist sounding - it makes Wikipedia look like a dangerous place that shouldn't be trusted at all. This is an overblown mischaracterization."

Angela . 18:12, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't care either way, I just created the template to replace the disclaimer on the pair of pages that already had them (and because the one at pipe bomb was really ugly). I added it to mushroom hunting because it is similar to edible mushroom and either both should have a disclaimer, or none of them. I never intended to add it anywhere else (unless I found another page with a link to the Risk Disclaimer, which I would then replace with the template).

If you think adding them is innapropriate, it might be a good idea to add a notice at the top of the talk page of the disclaimers telling people to not add unnecessary links to them. Now that I know that kind of link should not exist (and I agree, they are ugly -- that's why I created the template, to make it easier to make them less ugly with a single change), I will simply remove them if I see another one.

Feel free to do whatever you want to this template -- speedy, vfd, delete it yourself. You can copy this discussion to a related talk page (mine, the disclaimer's, or somewhere else), or simply delete it together with the template.

cesarb 23:35, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Just a small comment: the last, bolded line on this page is ungrammatical. Rather than a comma, it should hava a period or a semi-colon. It's locked, so I can't change it, but someone who can should. Remes 03:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. --Slowking Man 10:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki links

Please add a link to the Vietnamese version (currently being translated). You'll have to use the following code, since Unicode isn't supported here:

[[vi:Wikipedia:Tự mạo hiểm khi dùng]]

Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 04:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, please add the following lines, which include the Vietnamese one, since I've found a few more translations of this page:

[[ca:Viquipèdia:Declinació de responsabilitat per perills]]
[[da:Wikipedia:Risikoforbehold]]
[[hu:Wikipédia:Kockázatok kizárása]]
[[pt:Wikipedia:Aviso de Risco]]
[[ro:Wikipedia:Disclaimer despre riscuri]]
[[sv:Wikipedia:Förbehåll för risker]]
[[vi:Wikipedia:Tự mạo hiểm khi dùng]]
[[zh-cn:Wikipedia:风险声明]]
[[zh-tw:Wikipedia:風險聲明]]

Thanks. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs, blog) 05:04, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All done. jni 08:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More disclaimer templates

Every so often, someone has the same idea. Links to some of the discussions:

Please add category...

Please add this page to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks! -- Beland 01:24, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer templates policy proposal

I have created a policy proposal on disclaimer templates. --cesarb 23:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Correction

"PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION YOU MAY FIND IN WIKIPEDIA MAY BE INACCURATE, MISLEADING, DANGEROUS, MISSPELED OR ILLEGAL."

Isn't "MISSPELED" always spelt "MISSPELLED"? Deus Ex 19:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah I was thinking the same thing.... http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misspelled --GNU4Eva 28 June 2005 07:39 (UTC)

The misspelling is in fact intentional, as it is an obscure literary device whose article I recommend you study. — Dan | Talk 3 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

Please edit the word "ILLEGAL" to add an external link to child pornography. --SPUI (talk) 3 July 2005 02:29 (UTC)

You certainly are an expert on obscure literary devices.

The "misspelled" bit should be removed, as this isn't a humor essay. I'd do it myself but the page is protected. Melchoir 01:07, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Minor correction

"Doublecheck" should be "Double-check" (the verb form has a hyphen). [[1]] TidyCat 07:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

interwiki link

Would you please add this interwiki link:

[[tr:Vikipedi:Risk sorumluluğu reddi]]

Thnx in advance...

--Doruk Salancı 17:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 06:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Encourage WP:CITE?

This disclaimer says, "Doublecheck information with independent sources." Could we maybe add the following text or a statement similar to it?

Of course, there is nothing stopping you from citing on your own any information in an article that you can verify.

-- Denelson 83 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I think that it has more to do with people who are attempting to trust Wikipedia for it, they should look for additional sources. Enough sources should be provided that the article is verifiable, but more are not strictly necessary, as it's the user's discretion whether or not they want to trust or use the information, and this disclaimer already warns about it. But yeah, you could WP:CITE whatever you want, and having more reliable sources is better. 74.38.33.15 07:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request

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

[[sr:Википедија:Одрицање о ризику]]

Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, link this page to catalan Wikipedia

ca:Viquipèdia:Avís d'exempció de responsabilitat per perills

Pérez 06:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally

I like the "WP is not intended as a basis for behaviour" used on the CD Selection but no doubt someone will tell me why its redundant --BozMo talk 12:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Passage suggests disclaimer templates

{{editprotected}} The passage "This risk disclaimer has been linked to the page you have been reading because..." suggests that disclaimer templates are a common, accepted practice on Wikipedia. Even without templates, we rarely, if ever, link to this page, especially not from article space. I think it should be removed. szyslak 11:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the disclaimers are linked from every page on wikipedia. It's part of the footer;) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll rephrase that: "...we rarely, if ever, link to this page aside from the "Disclaimers" link on the bottom". But what I really meant is, we don't put a more prominent link to this particular page on especially "dangerous" articles. The passage in question implies that we do. szyslak 19:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

As an otherwise uninvolved party who stumbled upon this discussion, I would have to agree with szyslak -- the second sentence reads as if the disclaimer might be applied to specific content, and reads ominously like a soothsayer (as if it knows how we got to this page... the nerve! ;-)). In this instance, I think the whole thing should just be left out. The reason a reader may be reading the disclaimer is of no importance... content is importent, context is not. We should explicitly state here that the disclaimer is not to be used in a manner described by szyslak, but should not address it in any way within the disclaimer itself. /Blaxthos 20:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be worded as:

This risk disclaimer is linked to on every page because there is a possibility that some of the information on that page may create an unreasonable risk for those readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties.

--Mr.Z-man 04:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"This risk disclaimer is linked from every page..." is an obvious statement. So how about:

Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for those readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties.

szyslak 05:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I like that wording, szyslak. :) Nihiltres^(t.l) 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. However, realizing the importance of the wording of this page, I give carte blanche to any admin who wishes to revert me. Cheers. --MZMcBride 01:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki request

Please add the interwiki link to the Spanish Wikipedia. The link is:

[[es:Wikipedia:Aviso de riesgo]]

Thanks. --Paintman 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, matt br 12:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please add link to the Russian Wikipedia too

[[ru:Википедия:Вы пользуетесь Википедией на свой страх и риск]]

~ kintup 05:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Graham87 06:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Scary

This article looks very scary with all those words in bold. Can't you please write it make it a bit more considerate and welcoming? After all, I won't attempt suicide by reading Wikipedia. --Twicemost (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just visiting the page and thinking the same thing. I've cut down a little on the bolding and redundant terms, and made it slightly more considerate. LOTS OF BOLD CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't influence liability, and actually makes disclaimers less comprehensible, if more distracting. sj 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki request

{{editprotected}} Please add [[mk:Википедија:Одрекување од ризик]] in the interwiki list. Thank you in advance :) Brainmachine (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Done Skier Dude (talk) 00:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shortcut request

{{editprotected}} The WP:RISK shortcut now redirects to the main page; please add a {{Shortcut|WP:RISK}} banner. Dl2000 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done Graham87 03:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki Request

Please add [[hi:विकिपीडिया:जोखिम अस्वीकरण]] to the list of interwikis. -- Priyanka (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Done --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki Request

{{editprotected}} Please adding the interwiki for Thai Language. ([[th:วิกิพีเดีย:ข้อปฏิเสธความรับผิดชอบด้านความเสี่ยง]]) Thanks in advance. --Harley Hartwell (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Done - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Addictive?

Addictive Information?----occono (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki request

{{editprotected}} Please add gl interwiki: gl:Wikipedia:Aviso de risco. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toliño (talk • contribs) 16:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. I created a /doc page and added it there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Documentation?

{{editprotected}} Is there any particular reason this has {{documentation}}? If not, can an admin get rid of it?--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I see it in the history as to why. hmm...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 20:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The doc template points to Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer/doc, which I just had to revert to the version date 28 January 2010 by user:MSGJ, as all subsequent edits from that point were either test edits, vandalism, or incomplete reverts. If we're going to unload these onto a subpage, could use a few people adding that subpage to their watchlist ... otherwise, we're better off reverting to moving the interwiki and cats back to this page and returning to the use of {{editprotected}} for changes. --- Barek (talk) - 22:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories inconsistent with other disclaimer pages

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The layout of the Risk Disclaimer is different then the other disclaimer pages. The other disclaimer pages list their categories as part of the main document while the Risk Disclaimer page has a sub page (compare Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer). Could the contents of Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer/doc be added to Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer and the aforementioned page deleted so that the styles of all the pages are consistent?

Thanks! meshach (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The idea is that it is unnecessary to protect categories and interwikis, so these are put in an unprotected subpage. Then editors can adjust these without the need to ask an administrator. This is the usual approach to protected templates. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Then maybe the other ones should be modified to be like the Risk Disclaimer? My main concern is that they are different. meshach (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have another suggestion: we could put these interwikis in Template:Disclaimer header, so there wouldn't be a blue box and yet editors would be able to maintain them. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I like that idea meshach (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay I have now done this. Thanks for discussing this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change! meshach (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki request (Malay Wikipedia)

Dear sysops,

Please add link to Malay Wikipedia site. The link is: [[ms:Wikipedia:Penafian risiko]].

Thank you. - Hezery99 (talk) 02:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done, but you could have added the interwiki yourself by editing Template:Disclaimer header. Graham87 14:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed rewording

I think the text would benefit from rewording "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT ANY INFORMATION..." to "PLEASE BE AWARE THAT SOME INFORMATION" so as to bring more welcoming editorial atmosphere. The line in its current form seems to be in conflict with WP:REF, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:AGF, much like the closing line "DO NOT RELY UPON ANY INFORMATION...", which could be better by having the word "important" before "information", for example. Both bold lines presently carry some unwelcoming and discouraging tone, especially for newbies, imo, and downplay the common effort, particularly in featured content and, to some extent, in article feedback system. The closing bold line also brings in some paranoia, urging to verify literally every sentence and thus squeezing the reading. While such rigour is warranted in medical and legal disclaimers, I don't think it should be that strict in general. Brandmeister t 00:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. "Any" is a more absolute phrasing, which is appropriate here. Additionally, the off-putting feeling of the disclaimer is intentional - disclaimers are, by their nature, intended to express absolutes - in this case, the absolute that you bear all risk when using any information found on Wikipedia. This communicates both the obvious subtext of "So don't sue us, please" as well as a subtext of "so don't bother suing us because we gave you fair warning that you couldn't rely on what we said." --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

There should be common sense, at least to the extent of being consistent with the "some information on Wikipedia" sentence below "PLEASE BE AWARE". "Any" information in Wikipedia can not be "inaccurate", "misleading", "dangerous", "addictive", "unethical" or "illegal", only some part of it could be. There are numerous examples of accurate, safe, non-addictive and law-neutral information in Wikipedia actually, excluding common knowledge of course, like Earth is a planet. Brandmeister t 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Remember that you can edit, too!

I think the third paragraph:

Please take all steps necessary to ascertain that information you receive from Wikipedia is correct and has been verified. Check the references at the end of the article. Read the article's talk page and revision history to see if there are outstanding disputes over the contents of the article. Double-check all information with independent sources.

should be made more encouraging, perhaps "Remember that you can edit, too! So you can correct any information you believe to be incorrect or misleading." 68.173.113.106 (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree ... the editing interface is very hard to use for novice users, and their well-meaning edits are fairly likely to be reverted unless they explain what they're doing clearly and cite reliable sources. Graham87 15:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Sponsors?

I was intrigued by this line: "None of the authors, contributors, sponsors, 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."

Since when did Wikipedia have sponsors? Could that come out, perhaps? --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder if that's just boilerplate that was left in, if it refers to donors, or something else? --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The word "sponsors" dates back to the original version from May 2003. It's possible that the author meant to refer to donors, or that he wanted to leave open the possibility that Wikipedia would have advertising in the future. I'm all for either eliminating or changing the word "sponsors", because it's unclear and potentially misleading szyslak (t) 05:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Done I've removed it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! szyslak (t) 06:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks folks. --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 10:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Initial comment

Risk disclaimer template

Interwiki links

More disclaimer templates

Please add category...

Disclaimer templates policy proposal

Correction

Minor correction

interwiki link

Encourage WP:CITE?

Interwiki request

Please, link this page to catalan Wikipedia

Personally

Passage suggests disclaimer templates

Interwiki request

Scary

Interwiki request

Shortcut request

Interwiki Request

Interwiki Request

Addictive?

Interwiki request

Documentation?

More helpful links

Categories inconsistent with other disclaimer pages

Interwiki request (Malay Wikipedia)

Proposed rewording

Remember that you can edit, too!

Sponsors?