Direct edits to the proposed template are welcome, as are suggestions/feedback here. alanyst 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do not rely on Wikipedia See the full site disclaimer. |
Hi there; I had a note from Anthony so I took a look. Version E is definitely my favorite. I agree with Sandy that we should be making it clear that anybody could have edited the page you're looking at, and it's important to stress the sort of areas that you should definitely not be relying on WP for. A and B are a little too wordy, and B's small text size is offputting; D is so brief as to be over-harsh; and I think E's descriptive link to the disclaimer is better than linking to it using the word "disclaimer" itself, which not everyone may be familiar with.
Is this effort an offshoot of discussion somewhere else? — Scott • talk 20:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It would certainly be possible to have a single basic template, similar maybe to project banners, which could include specific "versions" of the template to appear with specific reference to medical, legal, financial, or other topics. Personally, so far, I am myself, as a bit of an outsider, fondest of the first version, although I would add some provision for history or other topics as well. User:History2007 is one senior editor who basically retired based on problematic fringe POV pushing in that field, and I would think, at least, adding "contentious history" or something similar as another option in a multiple option template might be the best way to go. John Carter ( talk) 18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just added a Version G. Wikipedia information is probably right after all... Carrite ( talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Normally when I see disclaimers like this, they go something like:
CorporateM ( Talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
At least two other-language Wikipedias have medical disclaimer templates that link to specific and explicit disclaimers for medical topics.
— Scott • talk 20:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia language | Number of articles | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|---|
Chinese | 732,000 | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | 1,700,000 | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | 1,600,000 | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Indonesian | 322,000 | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian | 399,000 | no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom |
Portuguese | 802,000 | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Turkish | 220,000 | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
OK, turkey done, and I'm not traveling over the holiday weekend after all because dh has an ear infection. Let's get on with this. My four cents' worth:
That leaves me willing to endorse further work on Versions B or C. Let's get some consensus in here so we can move to the next step. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. See the full site disclaimer. |
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added a "discard pile" section to the page and moved a number of the older and less-favored versions into it, based on the feedback given above. I also tweaked Anthonyhcole's latest suggestion and offered two variations on it (I and J) so see what you think. alanyst 05:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Version K
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors; help us fix them using high quality sources. |
Just sayin ... if everyone agrees in theory but disagrees on the technical, we're never going to come up with a starting version. What was my section heading again? We need a starting place-- the small print can be worked out over time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Scott Martin, mostly for strategic and practical reasons. I think it much better to have a version that specifically references medical content. (Or medical plus legal etc.) This group of people here has a certain legitimacy and authority to put such a template on specific articles. We could put up that warning right now. If, however, we have a template that simply repeats the general disclaimer, it should be the subject of discussion at the Village Pump etc. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Version 911DHeyward
If you are experiencing medical symptoms, stop reading and contact your health care provider. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and this medical article may contain errors. Help us fix them by using high quality sources. |
What I want - (1) has to have "no substitute for medical advice" - what we are advising people is we're not a doctor. In this way we try and highlight that any webpage is not medical advice and if it prevents one person from incorrectly diagnosing or managing themselves from any website then that is a bonus. (2) I think we need the word "Please" in it i.e. "Please do not reply on wikipedia for medical advice" - I can live without terseness and wonder whether it subliminally antagonises some proportion of readers. (3) Need need need a link to WP:MEDRS (4) I'd have it coloured apricot and in top RHS of article. Either at head of infobox or on its own there. Apricot as dilute warning/attention colour. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Version CL
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help us improve our medical articles using high quality sources. |
I have a problem with "us", suggest: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Version CL modified
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high quality sources. |
Yep - happy to drop the 'us' Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please
do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high-quality sources. |
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please
do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high-quality sources. |
I'm OK with most options on this page, but I do think Riggr, above, makes a good point about replacing "Wikipedia" with "this article;" maybe:
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be general satisfaction with Riggr's approach so I put up Anthonyhcole's latest as Version L and moved the rest into the discard pile. Anyone is welcome to retrieve an earlier version from there if desired, but it feels like we're getting close to a stable version so it seems appropriate to focus on refining the latest idea. alanyst 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Quoting WP:No disclaimers in articles#Why disclaimers should not be used:
If we compare this banner to the list above:
Wikipedia does not give medical advice The information provided here cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional. |
Then literally all issues listed except item #6 are irrelevant, because it's already included in all articles due to it being a direct quote of
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer (the only difference is "here" replaces "on Wikipedia" from the disclaimer page). The banner simply increases accessibility to the medical disclaimer without saying anything new. I also like it because it doesn't use
second person.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
02:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Added: a similar approach using any other direct quote from the medical disclaimer page would also invalidate the first 5 arguments in that list - my version is just meant to serve as an example.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
02:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to hold off on a RFC until after the holidays, but have started a draft at User:SandyGeorgia/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about how to move forward with this. One reason I opposed, and, I suspect, many did is that the ideas put forward so far have not been streamlined to fit into the existing Mediawiki design. They have also singled out medical articles. I have a suggestion that I'm prepared to support if you all agree to it and that I think has a shot at consensus. I propose we add a third navigation tab next to "Article" and "Talk" at the top of every page. So we'd have "Article" "Talk" "Disclaimer" and then "Read" "Edit" "View history" on the other side. "Disclaimer" would behave just like the the current disclaimers link at the bottom. Would this be agreeable? User:Anthonyhcole, User:SandyGeorgia, User:DESiegel, User:ArnoldReinhold, User:Casliber, User:Jmh649, User:Lesion, User:Anomie, User:Wnt, User:Legoktm, User:Cirt, User:Alexbrn, User:Jbmurray? Acer ( talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
For starters, I'm more than a bit frustrated that we don't seem to have a central place for pounding out new ideas, and that efforts to further discuss new ideas on the RFC talk page were shut down. (On the idea that the RFC hasn't closed yet, but that RFC is done, and we could wait a month for an admin to come along and close it, so why not use the talk page for working up new ideas?) I'm not sure why we're discussing ideas over on a user subpage, rather than at the RFC talk page, which seems a more likely central discussion place. Anyway ...
I don't like the idea of a new tab, for the same reason I don't like the sidebar proposal: we are attempting to educate readers who typically don't understand the nature of Wikipedia, and those readers will not see/notice a tab any more than they will see/notice the sidebar. How many times do you talk to non-editors who have no idea there is even a tab to a talk page? They won't see the disclaimers. The idea of putting the disclaimers in a site-wide thingie at the top, exactly as we now have it at the bottom, is to get it somewhere were readers unaccustomed to Wikipedia are more likely to see it. To me, a tab is even less desirable than the sidebar, as too many readers don't even see/notice the tabs we currently have.
But I'm thrilled to see new ideas coming forward, because we do need to do something. Just yesterday, I cleaned out a really bad article full of really bad medical info, of the type people might rely on for decisions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been three months. Shall we try again? This time, just asking one question in an RfC - should there be a disclaimer on Wikipedia's medical articles? No discussion of form, content, or placement, just principle. — Scott • talk 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Asking everyone to comment on every aspect is invariably going to end in a muddle. Why not simply set up a working party with members elected by the community and get them to produce a very limited number of proposals, say 3. This will encourage the party to develop a small range of suggestions, at least one of which stands a fighting chance. Then get people to vote on the choice. This is how it is done in real life. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Direct edits to the proposed template are welcome, as are suggestions/feedback here. alanyst 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
Do not rely on Wikipedia See the full site disclaimer. |
Hi there; I had a note from Anthony so I took a look. Version E is definitely my favorite. I agree with Sandy that we should be making it clear that anybody could have edited the page you're looking at, and it's important to stress the sort of areas that you should definitely not be relying on WP for. A and B are a little too wordy, and B's small text size is offputting; D is so brief as to be over-harsh; and I think E's descriptive link to the disclaimer is better than linking to it using the word "disclaimer" itself, which not everyone may be familiar with.
Is this effort an offshoot of discussion somewhere else? — Scott • talk 20:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It would certainly be possible to have a single basic template, similar maybe to project banners, which could include specific "versions" of the template to appear with specific reference to medical, legal, financial, or other topics. Personally, so far, I am myself, as a bit of an outsider, fondest of the first version, although I would add some provision for history or other topics as well. User:History2007 is one senior editor who basically retired based on problematic fringe POV pushing in that field, and I would think, at least, adding "contentious history" or something similar as another option in a multiple option template might be the best way to go. John Carter ( talk) 18:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I've just added a Version G. Wikipedia information is probably right after all... Carrite ( talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Normally when I see disclaimers like this, they go something like:
CorporateM ( Talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
At least two other-language Wikipedias have medical disclaimer templates that link to specific and explicit disclaimers for medical topics.
— Scott • talk 20:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia language | Number of articles | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|---|
Chinese | 732,000 | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | 1,700,000 | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | 1,600,000 | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Indonesian | 322,000 | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian | 399,000 | no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom |
Portuguese | 802,000 | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Turkish | 220,000 | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
OK, turkey done, and I'm not traveling over the holiday weekend after all because dh has an ear infection. Let's get on with this. My four cents' worth:
That leaves me willing to endorse further work on Versions B or C. Let's get some consensus in here so we can move to the next step. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. See the full site disclaimer. |
Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added a "discard pile" section to the page and moved a number of the older and less-favored versions into it, based on the feedback given above. I also tweaked Anthonyhcole's latest suggestion and offered two variations on it (I and J) so see what you think. alanyst 05:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Version K
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors; help us fix them using high quality sources. |
Just sayin ... if everyone agrees in theory but disagrees on the technical, we're never going to come up with a starting version. What was my section heading again? We need a starting place-- the small print can be worked out over time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Scott Martin, mostly for strategic and practical reasons. I think it much better to have a version that specifically references medical content. (Or medical plus legal etc.) This group of people here has a certain legitimacy and authority to put such a template on specific articles. We could put up that warning right now. If, however, we have a template that simply repeats the general disclaimer, it should be the subject of discussion at the Village Pump etc. -- jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Version 911DHeyward
If you are experiencing medical symptoms, stop reading and contact your health care provider. Anyone can edit Wikipedia and this medical article may contain errors. Help us fix them by using high quality sources. |
What I want - (1) has to have "no substitute for medical advice" - what we are advising people is we're not a doctor. In this way we try and highlight that any webpage is not medical advice and if it prevents one person from incorrectly diagnosing or managing themselves from any website then that is a bonus. (2) I think we need the word "Please" in it i.e. "Please do not reply on wikipedia for medical advice" - I can live without terseness and wonder whether it subliminally antagonises some proportion of readers. (3) Need need need a link to WP:MEDRS (4) I'd have it coloured apricot and in top RHS of article. Either at head of infobox or on its own there. Apricot as dilute warning/attention colour. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:11, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Version CL
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help us improve our medical articles using high quality sources. |
I have a problem with "us", suggest: SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Version CL modified
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high quality sources. |
Yep - happy to drop the 'us' Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please
do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high-quality sources. |
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please
do not rely on it for medical advice. Help improve medical content using high-quality sources. |
I'm OK with most options on this page, but I do think Riggr, above, makes a good point about replacing "Wikipedia" with "this article;" maybe:
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be general satisfaction with Riggr's approach so I put up Anthonyhcole's latest as Version L and moved the rest into the discard pile. Anyone is welcome to retrieve an earlier version from there if desired, but it feels like we're getting close to a stable version so it seems appropriate to focus on refining the latest idea. alanyst 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
Quoting WP:No disclaimers in articles#Why disclaimers should not be used:
If we compare this banner to the list above:
Wikipedia does not give medical advice The information provided here cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional. |
Then literally all issues listed except item #6 are irrelevant, because it's already included in all articles due to it being a direct quote of
Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer (the only difference is "here" replaces "on Wikipedia" from the disclaimer page). The banner simply increases accessibility to the medical disclaimer without saying anything new. I also like it because it doesn't use
second person.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
02:18, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Added: a similar approach using any other direct quote from the medical disclaimer page would also invalidate the first 5 arguments in that list - my version is just meant to serve as an example.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
02:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to hold off on a RFC until after the holidays, but have started a draft at User:SandyGeorgia/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been thinking about how to move forward with this. One reason I opposed, and, I suspect, many did is that the ideas put forward so far have not been streamlined to fit into the existing Mediawiki design. They have also singled out medical articles. I have a suggestion that I'm prepared to support if you all agree to it and that I think has a shot at consensus. I propose we add a third navigation tab next to "Article" and "Talk" at the top of every page. So we'd have "Article" "Talk" "Disclaimer" and then "Read" "Edit" "View history" on the other side. "Disclaimer" would behave just like the the current disclaimers link at the bottom. Would this be agreeable? User:Anthonyhcole, User:SandyGeorgia, User:DESiegel, User:ArnoldReinhold, User:Casliber, User:Jmh649, User:Lesion, User:Anomie, User:Wnt, User:Legoktm, User:Cirt, User:Alexbrn, User:Jbmurray? Acer ( talk) 01:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
For starters, I'm more than a bit frustrated that we don't seem to have a central place for pounding out new ideas, and that efforts to further discuss new ideas on the RFC talk page were shut down. (On the idea that the RFC hasn't closed yet, but that RFC is done, and we could wait a month for an admin to come along and close it, so why not use the talk page for working up new ideas?) I'm not sure why we're discussing ideas over on a user subpage, rather than at the RFC talk page, which seems a more likely central discussion place. Anyway ...
I don't like the idea of a new tab, for the same reason I don't like the sidebar proposal: we are attempting to educate readers who typically don't understand the nature of Wikipedia, and those readers will not see/notice a tab any more than they will see/notice the sidebar. How many times do you talk to non-editors who have no idea there is even a tab to a talk page? They won't see the disclaimers. The idea of putting the disclaimers in a site-wide thingie at the top, exactly as we now have it at the bottom, is to get it somewhere were readers unaccustomed to Wikipedia are more likely to see it. To me, a tab is even less desirable than the sidebar, as too many readers don't even see/notice the tabs we currently have.
But I'm thrilled to see new ideas coming forward, because we do need to do something. Just yesterday, I cleaned out a really bad article full of really bad medical info, of the type people might rely on for decisions. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been three months. Shall we try again? This time, just asking one question in an RfC - should there be a disclaimer on Wikipedia's medical articles? No discussion of form, content, or placement, just principle. — Scott • talk 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Asking everyone to comment on every aspect is invariably going to end in a muddle. Why not simply set up a working party with members elected by the community and get them to produce a very limited number of proposals, say 3. This will encourage the party to develop a small range of suggestions, at least one of which stands a fighting chance. Then get people to vote on the choice. This is how it is done in real life. Peter Damian ( talk) 19:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)