Wikipedia talk:General disclaimer
Dicussion 1[change source]
I did my best to render this in plain English, without losing the urgency of the message that Wiki is not responsible for sins of commission, omission, emission, transmission, or submission. Flowers, bricks, or any other form of feedback would be appreciated. Denni 22:40, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Great work, but this is still much too hard. The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level is now 12.6 (compared to 17 originally). It could do with being grade 10 (a reading age of 15-16) at the most. Cutting down the average words per sentence (currently 27) would help a lot.
- It's been on my to-do list for ages but I still haven't got round to it. If anyone else does before I do, I recommend trying to get rid of words like erroneous, warranty, libelous and uniformly, or at least explaining in the text what they are. Angela 19:15, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I've made a few small changes to try and make it simpler, but I'm worried about changing too much legal stuff without knowing what I'm doing. The paragraph starting "Please note that some things in Wikipedia may be against the law..." needs serious work, it is currently only 2 sentences, neither of which are easy to read for me, and I've been speaking English all my life. -- Tango 21:20, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
I Just wanted to say, as a child growing. Up1970/07/27 , ,I was under the impression ghost(spirits) where unaccepted ..Now I do have sister and a beautiful mother.. .but am of know religion.father ,son holy stupidity. . Where mother in this. I am here on your side. God is ,%100 pure water,now In me. In you WET. In all the sky is water. They dehydrate any thing'%100. In won't burn. Mom the Real world not Seven headed monsters. Thank you. Latino of relation (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion 2[change source]
Hey Tango - I think we've got it fairly well nailed down here. I'm going to ask Angela to vet it. Denni 18:43, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
Wow, the grade level is down to 7.7 (approx age 13) if you exclude the "legal wording" sections! Do we need the "LEGAL WORDING:" as well. Perhaps just a more prominent link to the full English version would be better than having those parts inline? Angela 19:23, 19 May 2004 (UTC)
- I think the legalese ought to be kept. The plain English is good, but the legalese serves a useful, um, legal purpose. Denni 23:16, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Some changes?[change source]
Ok, I'm pretty confused:
- About why the links for the other disclaimers point to en: not simple:
- Why there is no 'content disclaimer' - there are only four, not five, like on en:
Now I know this is probably the worst ever place to be bold, but I saw more harm in not changing these than in changing them (really) so I have.
I may add more to this comment as I progress.. (in a reply below)
- Hmm, OK - don't worry - I'll set things up, but I won't implement them until ... ever - I want someone else to agree they're good. Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I want to switch the header to what's used on en: to make it easier to the eye, and this is the version I want to use. I was going to put a definition of disclaimer myself, but I think that might imply that we supported it, and that's all legal, so a link to Wiktionary doesn't as much, I think. I do want to link to the simple wiktionary, not the en: one, a link to which makes no sense, but they haven't got a definition for disclaimer ready yet.
- I also prefer calling them a disclaimer to having what's there at the moment, as I think it's easier to read. The obvious solution is to call them a notice (or similar), but I think it needs to be legally appropriate - "disclaimer" - and so I think adding a link to Wiktionary would be good for people who may not understand.
- Alright, I've come up with what I think we should do. Take a look at the page for the deed for a Creative Commons License. You'll see at the bottom it has the text:
- The Commons Deed is not a license. It is simply a handy reference for understanding the Legal Code (the full license) — it is a human-readable expression of some of its key terms. Think of it as the user-friendly interface to the Legal Code beneath. This Deed itself has no legal value, and its contents do not appear in the actual license.
- I think we should make a simple English disclaimer, but mention that legally, we choose to be bound by the English Wikipedia's disclaimers. Then we can include words like 'notice', and cater for the people who want to read this, and we're alright legally - especially as the en: version is very very likely to be kept in mint legal condition and not leave the simple: project vulnerable.
- In somewhat unrelated point, I think that despite the fact that our simple: disclaimers may need work (and that I'm not admin :D), we should protect them indefinitely, as it could be quite bad if they were vandalised and an admin didn't see the edit for a while. IF my suggestion in the paragraph above was taken up, I would strongly suggest having a template with the legal message about being bound by en:, protecting that indefinitely and leaving the rest semi-protected, so it could be kept improved.
- Oh, also now the boring: I've added the fifth link, as I couldn't comfortably leave it out (to en:WP:Content disclaimer). And I am happy, as a temporary solution, to have en: links for the other disclaimers - they'll have suitable (legally, not for language) content, will be kept updated, and will link to pages that contain necessary information, where they may not be ready yet here.
- This is my proposal: User:Drum guy/General disclaimer (proposal). It has a couple of HTML comments.. we could go through the text simplifying it. I think our current version (Wikipedia:General disclaimer) is the simple text for the version of four years ago! Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I just want to say that the format in which this page is written in does not match Wikipedia's standard formatting. Is it supposed to be like that? I dare not change it, but if needed, can an admin please correct the formatting? I hope it is not vandalism. Prime Contributer (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree, but it isn't vandalism, it has just suffered a bit of neglect, over the last four years! My proposed update is above. Many thanks, Drum guy (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with wikipedia . Why I can't find frame work for engineering construction. I need to get information of it because I have to do discussion with teacher in my class. I thought that wiki is the second God and it have every information I need. But may be I was wrong. All I know is disappointed with this wiki. 👎 Pixythadar (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)