This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Update the current top text on every page:
to the proposed top text on every page:
by...
The proposal has been updated so as to:
The proposal meets the key reason for proposing the change, which is:
The current proposal addresses primary objections to earlier proposals which were:
See below for all proposals to date and reasons for and against.
Interested contributors please comment in appropriate section below.
Be sure you have read what is being proposed, above, before commenting!
Please sign with ~~~~.
Recently I posted some comments relevant to this proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). It has been suggested that I move them here. I am a little iffy on how appropriate this move is, but I'll "be bold" and do it. If these should be somewhere else, then my apologies. Comments follow. — Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever"
I think there are issues behind the tagline discussion that need some closer examination.
I note that people are speaking in terms of a "disclaimer". Disclaimers are legal devices. The idea is to cut through the PR nonsense and (using legal nonsense) indicate precisely what is being claimed. Usually contractual issues and protection from lawsuits are the relevant concerns. I think this is an issue for Wikipedia, and it needs some serious thought; however, this does not seem to be what is driving this discussion.
What is driving the discussion is the problem that people come to Wikipedia, read it, use it, maybe even edit it, without a clear understanding of what it is. Some of them end up using information from Wikipedia in inappropriate ways due to these misunderstandings. Others, when they discover what Wikipedia really is, feel deceived and angry. Others get angry due to their misunderstandings. Quite rightly, we want to address these issues.
So, first, I want to point out that we cannot be responsible for other people's actions. Many, many people are in the habit of grabbing some source, getting info from it, and leaving, without considering reliability or other important issues. Many of these people use Wikipedia. What can we do about them? Nothing. If someone does not want to give any thought to the source of his information, then all the explanatory text in the world will not help. Let us remember then, that some things are the reader's responsibility, not ours.
Second, Wikipedia is a new thing; the world has never seen its like before. We call it an "encyclopedia", and it is, I suppose. However, it is clear that many ideas that people associate with encyclopedias are not applicable to Wikipedia. But there is no word or phrase in any language that will concisely and thoroughly indicate to newcomers what Wikipedia is. So: how can we quickly give people a clear understanding of all the principles and process behind Wikipedia? We cannot. It is a waste of time to try.
Third, there is an annoying tradition, especially in the U.S., that every time there is an issue with some product, we tack on a notice in its documentation somewhere. I bought a soldering torch. It came with pages & pages of lists of things I should be careful of. And I read and thoughtfully considered every one, of course, wouldn't you? </sarcasm> This approach was invented by corporate lawyers as a way of stopping lawsuits. It is not about communicating information, and so it is not going to help us here. In short, don't think that tacking on gobs of little notices is going to eliminate everyone's misunderstandings about Wikipedia.
Fourth, there are people who are interested in checking their sources. Many of them do not understand Wikipedia, and could make better use of it if they did. Taglines & such are not going to help them. What might help is a short essay about who writes Wikipedia, and what approval processes an article needs to go through to be published in it. (Yes, I know, the short answer is "none", but we should still talk about the approval process, since that is what people want to know about.) The hard part is helping people find this explanation.
And that is what I think it is important to address. So, how about an actual concrete proposal: Instead of a tagline intended to communicate what Wikipedia is all about, how about a tagline that tells people where they can find such information, aimed at newcomers. Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head line: "Who writes Wikipedia?" Then make this a link to that short essay I mentioned earlier (or to a list of bullet points, or whatever). I'm sure someone can improve on this idea. Please do.
As I said earlier, I think disclaimers should be discussed as well, but that is a separate issue. Disclaimers are about contracts and lawsuits, not introducing newcomers and explaining things.
— Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This page was created per Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#How_to_propose_a_new_policy.
The proposed tagline change is not a full-blown policy but is more than a simple tagline edit change, as it affects all pages and reflects on the community's sense of what Wikipedia is. Changes that have been attempted on the tagline have been reverted. Different changes are being proposed for different reasons. A collection and summary of discussions across the several areas seems needed. Please help by collecting input in one place.
This proposal grew out of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The concern was that many readers did not understand the differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. This is especially a concern when people may rely on the accuracy of a Wikipedia article, not realizing how Wikipedia is created. There is a disclaimer link at the bottom of every page, but most readers will not notice it and fewer still follow it up.
Articles published in traditional encyclopedias represent the "official" output of the organization, and have gone through some kind of formal review for accuracy and style. This does not guarantee perfection, but readers know that the publisher has made some attempt to utilize knowledgeable experts, carefully reviews any changes/updates, and stands behind its work. Wikipedia is different. Articles can be written by anyone, editors are not selected according to their credentials, articles can be changed often, and there is no formal approval process. On the other hand, Wikipedia relies on collaboration to improve the accuracy of articles (which is generally very good), content is more relevant and up-to-date, there is tremendous breadth, and it's free.
After some discussion, the proposed additional tagline was developed with the idea of incorporating it with the current tagline at the top of each page. The purpose is not to apologize for possible inaccuracies in articles, but to make the Wikipedia distinction clear.
1: The proposal provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted.
2: The proposal puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. (NOTE: Version 15 removes the word "disclaimer" from the text)
3: The proposal emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias
4: The proposal is short enough to include at the top of every page.
5: The proposal is a positive statement.
1: It makes the disclaimer too prominent.
2: Tradition
3: It doesn't scan/ rhyme as well as "...Wikipedia ...encyclopedia."
4: It takes extra space at the top of a page (a 2nd line)
5: It already says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." on the Main Page
6: Links in the tagline distract from the article.
7: Less is more; Keep it simple, stupid.
8: It sounds too bookish.
9: The statement that Wikipedia is FREE is sufficient warning to readers to check the accuracy of its content. " There ain't no such thing as a FREE lunch." Even if something appears to be free, there is always a catch.
(If there is another location where it should be announced, please go right ahead and announce it there.)
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Update the current top text on every page:
to the proposed top text on every page:
by...
The proposal has been updated so as to:
The proposal meets the key reason for proposing the change, which is:
The current proposal addresses primary objections to earlier proposals which were:
See below for all proposals to date and reasons for and against.
Interested contributors please comment in appropriate section below.
Be sure you have read what is being proposed, above, before commenting!
Please sign with ~~~~.
Recently I posted some comments relevant to this proposal on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). It has been suggested that I move them here. I am a little iffy on how appropriate this move is, but I'll "be bold" and do it. If these should be somewhere else, then my apologies. Comments follow. — Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
"Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever"
I think there are issues behind the tagline discussion that need some closer examination.
I note that people are speaking in terms of a "disclaimer". Disclaimers are legal devices. The idea is to cut through the PR nonsense and (using legal nonsense) indicate precisely what is being claimed. Usually contractual issues and protection from lawsuits are the relevant concerns. I think this is an issue for Wikipedia, and it needs some serious thought; however, this does not seem to be what is driving this discussion.
What is driving the discussion is the problem that people come to Wikipedia, read it, use it, maybe even edit it, without a clear understanding of what it is. Some of them end up using information from Wikipedia in inappropriate ways due to these misunderstandings. Others, when they discover what Wikipedia really is, feel deceived and angry. Others get angry due to their misunderstandings. Quite rightly, we want to address these issues.
So, first, I want to point out that we cannot be responsible for other people's actions. Many, many people are in the habit of grabbing some source, getting info from it, and leaving, without considering reliability or other important issues. Many of these people use Wikipedia. What can we do about them? Nothing. If someone does not want to give any thought to the source of his information, then all the explanatory text in the world will not help. Let us remember then, that some things are the reader's responsibility, not ours.
Second, Wikipedia is a new thing; the world has never seen its like before. We call it an "encyclopedia", and it is, I suppose. However, it is clear that many ideas that people associate with encyclopedias are not applicable to Wikipedia. But there is no word or phrase in any language that will concisely and thoroughly indicate to newcomers what Wikipedia is. So: how can we quickly give people a clear understanding of all the principles and process behind Wikipedia? We cannot. It is a waste of time to try.
Third, there is an annoying tradition, especially in the U.S., that every time there is an issue with some product, we tack on a notice in its documentation somewhere. I bought a soldering torch. It came with pages & pages of lists of things I should be careful of. And I read and thoughtfully considered every one, of course, wouldn't you? </sarcasm> This approach was invented by corporate lawyers as a way of stopping lawsuits. It is not about communicating information, and so it is not going to help us here. In short, don't think that tacking on gobs of little notices is going to eliminate everyone's misunderstandings about Wikipedia.
Fourth, there are people who are interested in checking their sources. Many of them do not understand Wikipedia, and could make better use of it if they did. Taglines & such are not going to help them. What might help is a short essay about who writes Wikipedia, and what approval processes an article needs to go through to be published in it. (Yes, I know, the short answer is "none", but we should still talk about the approval process, since that is what people want to know about.) The hard part is helping people find this explanation.
And that is what I think it is important to address. So, how about an actual concrete proposal: Instead of a tagline intended to communicate what Wikipedia is all about, how about a tagline that tells people where they can find such information, aimed at newcomers. Here's an off-the-top-of-my-head line: "Who writes Wikipedia?" Then make this a link to that short essay I mentioned earlier (or to a list of bullet points, or whatever). I'm sure someone can improve on this idea. Please do.
As I said earlier, I think disclaimers should be discussed as well, but that is a separate issue. Disclaimers are about contracts and lawsuits, not introducing newcomers and explaining things.
— Nowhither 13:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
This page was created per Wikipedia:How_to_create_policy#How_to_propose_a_new_policy.
The proposed tagline change is not a full-blown policy but is more than a simple tagline edit change, as it affects all pages and reflects on the community's sense of what Wikipedia is. Changes that have been attempted on the tagline have been reverted. Different changes are being proposed for different reasons. A collection and summary of discussions across the several areas seems needed. Please help by collecting input in one place.
This proposal grew out of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). The concern was that many readers did not understand the differences between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias. This is especially a concern when people may rely on the accuracy of a Wikipedia article, not realizing how Wikipedia is created. There is a disclaimer link at the bottom of every page, but most readers will not notice it and fewer still follow it up.
Articles published in traditional encyclopedias represent the "official" output of the organization, and have gone through some kind of formal review for accuracy and style. This does not guarantee perfection, but readers know that the publisher has made some attempt to utilize knowledgeable experts, carefully reviews any changes/updates, and stands behind its work. Wikipedia is different. Articles can be written by anyone, editors are not selected according to their credentials, articles can be changed often, and there is no formal approval process. On the other hand, Wikipedia relies on collaboration to improve the accuracy of articles (which is generally very good), content is more relevant and up-to-date, there is tremendous breadth, and it's free.
After some discussion, the proposed additional tagline was developed with the idea of incorporating it with the current tagline at the top of each page. The purpose is not to apologize for possible inaccuracies in articles, but to make the Wikipedia distinction clear.
1: The proposal provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted.
2: The proposal puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. (NOTE: Version 15 removes the word "disclaimer" from the text)
3: The proposal emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias
4: The proposal is short enough to include at the top of every page.
5: The proposal is a positive statement.
1: It makes the disclaimer too prominent.
2: Tradition
3: It doesn't scan/ rhyme as well as "...Wikipedia ...encyclopedia."
4: It takes extra space at the top of a page (a 2nd line)
5: It already says "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit." on the Main Page
6: Links in the tagline distract from the article.
7: Less is more; Keep it simple, stupid.
8: It sounds too bookish.
9: The statement that Wikipedia is FREE is sufficient warning to readers to check the accuracy of its content. " There ain't no such thing as a FREE lunch." Even if something appears to be free, there is always a catch.
(If there is another location where it should be announced, please go right ahead and announce it there.)