Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline/Archive01

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive DO NOT EDIT

From Village pump (policy)[edit]

Wikipedia disclaimer[edit]

I was very surprised to learn recently that wikipedia was NOT an encyclopedia like those we are all used to using. Most people will not check for your disclaimers before looking for information, and they presume that what they find are well-researched facts. I only discovered this myself when I came across some information listed for a topic that was clearly opinion and was, in fact, gossip. You are therefore responsible for contributing to the spread of gossip and false data. Despite your disclaimer, you ARE presenting yourself as an ecyclopedia website, knowing that people will be deceived.

The very least that you can do is to have a heading on EACH page that appears, which says, "Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee of Validity." It would also be more correct of you, and certainly more ethical, if you called yourself, "Wikipedia, the user-created encyclopedia."

Linda Estabrook User talk:66.159.201.20 11:54, 2005 July 15

RESPONSE: Linda, would you cite the article that contains opinion and needs clean-up? We are collecting examples to support a proposal to make a disclaimer more evident at Wikipedia:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 13:22, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

"Real" encyclopedias disclaim accuracy, too. The three leading competing online encyclopedias have disclaimers and provide no warranty as to their accuracy - Britannica, Encarta and Bartleby. Sometimes the staff of those encyclopedias forget about the disclaimers. - Wikipedia:Replies to common objections
We really should make it a teeny bit more obvious, though, for newcomers. Add a "written by users like you!" at the top of the page or something. I am all about Eventualism and the convergence of the wiki towards Absolute Truth, but we aren't at Eventually yet, and vandalism and hearsay mean newcomers should check references and article history before believing everything. We are, most of the time, a much better source than half the crap floating around the internet, but some of our articles are far below the quality of a "real" encyclopedia (that wouldn't have any information on that subject at all).
That said, you should always check references for important things, even for stuff that's in paper encyclopedias, as they have errors, too. - Omegatron 17:10, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
You'd be surprised how many errors are present in the common text books too. David D. 21:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A newcomer's response. While objecting to the escalation from, "I found one item of gossip" to "you are deceiving the world", I have been surprised by the ubiquity of wiki hits on Google. Since so many more people will now be accessing wiki material, perhaps Estabrook is correct in advocating a little navel gazing. Megatron's defence that wiki is a better class of crap than that served up by other internet sources is hardly reassuring and we should all recognise that most users will never trouble themselves to check the references against the possibility of vandalism. So perhaps the answer is that there should be a roving commission to survey material and, when it finds articles that are sound, it should lock them. If a future editor believes any of the locked articles to require revision, let that be argued before editorial access is allowed. In this way, there is a slow accretion of core material that can justify the label of encyclopedia. Peripheral and evanescent material can be allowed to come and go as fashions change, with or without warning notices. -David91 18:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. People come up with proposals like this all the time, and probably a lot of people like them, but it will take a lot of work to get any kind of consensus to change something so fundamental to the idea of wiki. Much more realistic is to at least acknowledge in an obvious place that the pedia is user-written, and that only some of those users are experts. - Omegatron 21:39, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I came across many incorrect statements in the biology related pages. This was brought to my attention by students using it as source material. I agree there needs to be a stronger disclaimer on these pages. Some of the mistakes are subtle but some 'facts' are just wrong. Given how many online reference sources are harvesting wikipedia information it is scary to think how much misinformation may be out there on the internet. I do not think this means wikipedia is bad. It has huge potential and corrections will eventually get the quality up to scratch. But given the fact that there is wheat and chaff on these pages a disclaimer is warranted. David D. 18:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Please, when you come across these, either correct them or at least make a note on the relevant talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
See? When we read the Wikipedia we don't assume that everything is correct. We are both reading to learn and reading to edit, constantly on the lookout for things that might be wrong or vandalism or need cleanup. We approach all content with healthy skepticism. If we don't approach the Wikipedia as a completely authoritative source of information, we need to make sure newcomers don't approach it that way and then blame us for deceiving them and never come back.
See MediaWiki_talk:Tagline#From_Wikipedia.2C_the_free.2C_user-written_encyclopedia. - Omegatron 17:38, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

But, on two occasions, when I attempted to change pages (in my opinion for the better) I was met with hostility and abuse. I rapidly withdrew. Those pages remain unacceptable (in my opinion). So, please, let us not assume that placing warning messages as headers will resolve inherent behavioural and content problems. -David91 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then there would seem to be controversy regarding the article. Could you specifically tell us which pages these were (perhaps also linking to your edits in the history). I'll look into this. — Ambush Commander(Talk) 19:31, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I am not touting for a campaign of "Be nice to the old guy." Everywhere, I see reports of edit wars, sometimes over really meaningful issues such as what to call English counties or disputes over puncutation which get blown out of proportion by those with a non-consensual approach to life. "Looking into my editing history" is not going to add significantly to a pattern of behaviour that is well-documented and clearly inhibiting the growth of encyclopedic standards. The reason why I have not become involved in comparable disputes is that, at the first sign of abuse, I walk away. A plague on the causes of all those who will not iterate through reasonable debate towards some generally accepted point of view. -David91 05:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Wikipedia should include some type of disclaimer on every article page. I really like Wikipedia and try to contribute when I can. However, as a person involved in research, I would not advocate using Wikipedia per se as a reference; but, I would certainly recommend starting with Wikipedia in performing research. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource with many advantages over traditional reference works. Wikipedia is also very up-front about how it is created and its limitations. Unfortunately, most people will not realize the difference between Wikipedia and a traditional encyclopedia. Of course, no matter what you do, there will always be a few people who don't read the disclaimer. That said, I think it would be good to include a disclaimer anyway so that the majority of readers will get the idea. --Wyatts 18:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Wikipedia having an (existing) overall disclaimer, each contributer (including me) should have a disclaimer on her contribution to an article, and each article should have a disclaimer acknowledging where information may have other interpretations (e.g., scientific principles, evaluations of an artist's work quality and "themes", etc.). My son reads Wikipedia a LOT to study science and math and this led me to get an account. Fortunately he knows you can't believe everything you read on the internet. Fortunately many of the articles list references so that information can be checked. I have discovered inaccuracies (e.g., ranking of largest ports in the world out of date). To be rigorous you have to look stuff up and compare, which process Wikipedia helps. But Wikipedia certainly is not a definitive authority on any of its articles. Nor is any other encyclopedia or online references.

So it's caveat lector!

Sitearm 03:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No encyclopedia is perfectly accurate, of course. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is somehow not as good as other encyclopedias. (I believe Wikipedia is superior is many ways.) Instead, I am suggesting that Wikipedia needs a disclaimer because it is different from traditional encyclopedias. I think the disclaimer should inform people of the difference, not be an apology for any inaccuracies (since all encyclopedias have inaccuracies.) 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. People quickly learn which publishers do this well (or not) and hence establish the reputation of the publisher. People can then confidently reference such traditional encyclopedias in their research. 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. I might not reference Wikipedia directly, but I would certainly start there for research. So, with all that said, if there is ever going to be a disclaimer, then we need to start throwing out suggestions. It should be fairly short and emphasize the difference in Wikipedia, not an out for any inaccuracies. Here is something to chew on:

  • "All Wikipedia articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy."

I'm sure this could be improved (in a collaborative manner.) --Wyatts 22:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well, I found the Wikipedia:General disclaimer, and it is blunt and comprehensive. No doubt here: "Wikipedia Makes No Guarantee Of Validity." So that leaves saying something about why Wikipedia is special and why it's a good encyclopedia to use (Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great) or saying nothing at all and letting the work and its use speak for themselves. I'm sure this disclaimer issue will come up in the near future, say, when someone blames something on an article read here. The short disclaimer suggested by Wyatts is a good size to put on every page (is that what we're aiming for?), but its gist is covered in the existing full-size disclaimer page. How about "caveat lector et scriptor" ("let the reader and writer be cautious") to keep it short and add class? Hey, it might just work. Sitearm 06:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I politely disagree with your suggestion to use Latin? Many elementary and high-school students who use the Wikipedia do not speak Latin. The same would be true for some nonnative speakers of English. --Mamawrites 11:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia:General disclaimer certainly seems to cover everything, but, as noted by Sitearm, I am suggesting something short that could go on every page. After looking hard, I did in fact see that the general disclaimer link is at the bottom of every page, but few will actually notice this and fewer still check it out. The line at the top of every article that says, "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia", might be a good place. Maybe something like:
  • "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopdia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort and not subject to formal approval for content or accuracy. See disclaimer details."
--Wyatts 16:57, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mamawrites, I am OK with not using the Latin. It's a play on "caveat emptor" ("buyer beware"), but yes, it would just confuse things. Main point is, I agree with Wyatts to put something at the top of every page in addition to the tiny disclaimer link at the bottom. I feel uneasy at the statement about "not subject to formal approval..." and it's covered in the full page anyway. How about:

  • "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

Sitearm 06:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC) P.S. How do we submit what we agree on as a proposal to be added?[reply]


Although I wanted something about "not subject to formal approval", I must admit that it sounds too negative, and I could not find a good way to word it. I agree with the version from Mamawrites:

  • "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort. See disclaimer details."

It has the following points in its favor: It is short enough to include at the top of every page; it emphasizes the difference between Wikipedia and traditional encyclopedias; it is a positive statement; it provides enough information to inform the user that the articles are not formally vetted; and it puts the link to the full disclaimer in a prominent place where people are more likely to check it out. As to how to submit, I looked at Wikipedia:How to create policy. The more I look, the more it seems that this discussion should be transferred to Wikipedia: Village Pump (proposals). A policy is more like what to do in certain situations. This is a specific proposal to modify the general article template (but not a bug). But, even if it is moved, I'm not sure how to get it out of the proposal stage to be implemented. Perhaps we can set up a separate page like Wikipedia:Disclaimer proposal? I think we will need to recruit one or more administrators to eventually set up a vote and then get it to those who can actually implement the change. --Wyatts 14:25, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oops, I didn't coin that suggestion; Sitearm did. I support it, though! Mamawrites 22:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's add that disclaimer proposal page and link to it in the village pump proposals section. Your last paragraph is an excellent summary of the proposal and benefits. Would you be willing to start the page with your material? That would cover summarizing the proposal and the "for" reasons / benefits for doing it, for others to comment further. Things I can think of to add to the proposal page about why NOT to do this are: it takes extra space at the top of a page (probably a 2nd line); it takes some programmer time to edit a template to change this. This will give an "against" section for others to comment further. (P.S. It was me with the revised version of your version. Sorry for the confusion about addressing Mamawrites at the start of the paragraph.) Sitearm 16:09, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the tagline to:
  • From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
the other day, and it was reverted pretty quickly (of course). Go talk on Mediawiki talk:tagline if you think it should be changed. I think it should be changed. - Omegatron 19:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I made a new proposal page at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline and posted notices here and here. -- Sitearm | Talk 04:29, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

That looks like a good way to go. I'll start posting discussion at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. --Wyatts 17:01, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The primary proposal has been updated. Contributer's comments and support still requested here. -- Sitearm | Talk 19:48, 2005 August 11 (UTC)

Thoughts on tagline/disclaimer/whatever[edit]

I think there are issues behind the tagline discussion that need some closer examination. My comments are rather lengthy, and so I have deviated from the usual procedure and created a separate subsection for them. I hope no one is too terribly offended. (By the way, there seem to be many discussions on this topic. If there is a better place for my comments, could someone please point me to it. — Nowhither)

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 07:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


From MediaWiki talk:Tagline[edit]

From Wikipedia, the free, user-written encyclopedia.[edit]

What do you think? See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Wikipedia_disclaimer. - Omegatron 17:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's great! How about making it say From Wikipedia, the free, user-written encyclopedia that anyone can edit? - 66.91.79.69
I was (very) bold and changed it to say:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
So now it's a little more like the main page, which says:
Welcome to Wikipedia, the free-content encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
We'll see what people think... - Omegatron 18:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No way. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:04, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the appearance of every single page without prior discussion strikes me as being a little too bold :) Might want to bring it up on the Pump or somewhere that people see more often than this talk page.
That aside, I think the new version was too wordy. Tualha (Talk) 01:15, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Bring it up on the Village Pump, you say? - Omegatron 13:18, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline[edit]

A change to the current Wikipedia tagline has been proposed for discussion and adoption at Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. Interested contributers please visit this page.

Response: Your link has been added to the proposal. -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
  • I support a change to the tagline, but oppose this particular wording. - Omegatron 11:46, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
Response: What wording would you prefer? -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
I'm not sure. I changed it to "Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.", as a compromise between the current wording and the wording on the main page, as I figured people would think the main page wording was too long. Seems some people don't want anything to change, though... - Omegatron 21:25, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
I added your version to the list (5 now). Wyatts says to give it time :) -- Sitearm | Talk 03:22, 2005 August 6 (UTC)


From Talk:Main Page[edit]

Invite users to edit?[edit]

I'm not convinced that the Main Page is really inviting people to contribute to Wikipedia, which is a shame as collaborative editing is one of Wikipedia's key strengths. Perhaps we could add a link to the current collaborations of the week? I am... Abhishek has done a mock up of what I had in mind at User:Talrias/Main Page. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:07, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of a direct exhortation. support lots of issues | leave me a message 13:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody point out the difference to me? They seem perfectly identical. Circeus 14:55, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Look under the "anniversaries" section :) Talrias (t | e | c) 15:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. Perhaps make it even more prominent. Dave (not signed in).

Be bold Raul. lots of issues | leave me a message 02:50, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you rang? →Raul654 03:08, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

1. The four items of news and daily DYK collection often outsize the other side creating room for a small section. 2. This is the user built encyclopedia, lets make a more direct attempt to encourage our readers to become editors. 3. If we want to do that, what better place for an anon to start than in the heavily watched COTW. 4. Be bold, if someone disagrees with you inserting the COTW box onto the front page, they can revert with one touch and the harmless experiment ends. If it survives the day, then by consent implied by the silence, the community welcomes a new feature to the front page.

lots of issues | leave me a message 18:34, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A lot of people I talk to say they use wikipedia all the time but when I talk about how I edit it they're fascinated as if they were ignorant that they could do the same. I sent a link to one of my articles to someone and she said "Did Wikipedia have to approve that or something?" - again, this is someone who uses the Wiki to obtain information. --Tothebarricades 09:50, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please also see #Layout of the main four items (below). violet/riga (t) 18:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From User talk:Wyatts[edit]

Tagline proposal[edit]

Hi! Should we modify the official proposal to the shorter "... that anyone can edit. See disclaimer details"? -- Sitearm | Talk 21:39, 2005 August 5 (UTC)

That might be a good tagline. I'd give it a while (week or two) to see what else people come up with, and then pick the best one for the official proposal. I haven't noticed any vehement opposition so far, but that may change once we try to actually implement it. --Wyatts 21:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Per your lead, people are proposing specific wordings. I added a section to summarize proposed change versions. There was a 7 hour period on August 2nd when Omegatron did add "...that anyone can edit." to the actual tagline. But Blankfaze reverted it. Obviously, admins disagree too! -- Sitearm | Talk 22:36, 2005 August 5 (UTC)
Probably not so much a disagreement rather than the fact that the change wasn't discussed before it was made and it is so highly visible. We will have to build consensus among the Wikipedia community before making a change to the tag line. --Wyatts 01:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It was discussed on the village pump.
  2. Ignore all rules.
It's not like it was a very controversial change, and I'm not revert warring it or anything. Just a little extra bold.  ;-) - Omegatron 17:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

You said: There is much opposition to changing tagline. I think the opposition by Jimbo Wales to changing the tagline effectively kills the idea. As the founder of Wikipedia, his opinion carries exceptional weight (and he can probably make unilateral decisions if he really wants to.) I still want to do something to add a disclaimer statement at the top of every article, but I believe we will have to find a way to do it without modifying the tagline itself.

RESPONSE: I was concerned too. But the more I read Omegatron's comments, the more I think there is merit in capturing the back-and-forth in one place to lead to a likely eventual change.
If the text is to be displayed at the top of each page, that is the tagline in the current page template. I see no alternative unless we add another every-page-standard-line entity to the Wikipedia template design, which would be a major structural change. If the text is to be displayed anywhere else but the top, a fair reply is that it is already linked in the footer of every page so why bring up a change at all.
Are you proposing putting disclaimer text in the main body of every article? -- Sitearm | Talk 16:26, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
I'm proposing something like the original suggestion to put something at the top of every article, but not use the tagline, since there is strong opposition from Jimbo and others. I confess I don't know a good way to do this without using the tagline. Maybe (and I'm thinking out loud here) we could format it such that the disclaimer text is obviously separated from the tagline? e.g.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

All articles are user provided
in a collaborative effort.
--Wyatts 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: I've 1. Asked Omegatron's input on technicalities at User_talk:Omegatron#Tagline_alternative.3F, and 2. Added version with spacing on the project page. -- Sitearm | Talk 18:04, 2005 August 8 (UTC)
"All articles are user provided in a collaborative effort." is very dry-sounding. Surely we can do better. - Omegatron 18:23, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
RESPONSE: User_talk:Omegatron#Tagline_alternative.3F
  1. I'm not an artist; just a critic.  :-)
  2. It should at least say "user-provided".
  3. Hmmm... It sounds like an apology. "Where articles are collaboratively created by our users" sounds more optimistic, but kinda stupid. I'm not really sure... - Omegatron 01:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, "user-provided" is an option. Here also are terms from the article on collaborative writing:
  • coauthored
  • collaboratively authored
  • cooperatively written
  • group written
  • jointly authored
  • team written -- Sitearm | Talk 13:15, 2005 August 9 (UTC)
Has someone mentioned either of these two options yet? Somewhere where it will be obvious yet discrete.
My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out
My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Disclaimer Log out
Another alternative is:
  • Main Page
  • Community portal
  • Current events
  • Recent changes
  • Random article
  • Help
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact us
  • Donations
Either of these two options will be better than the way it is now. What is the big deal with the aesthetics anyway? David D. (Talk) 06:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: Response is here. -- Sitearm | Talk 16:16, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

From User talk:Omegatron[edit]

Tagline alternative?[edit]

See User_talk:Wyatts#Tagline_proposal. Would you respond there regarding other ways to put text on each page? Thanks for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 16:32, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

Specifically, Wyatts says: I'm proposing something like the original suggestion to put something at the top of every article, but not use the tagline, since there is strong opposition from Jimbo and others. I confess I don't know a good way to do this without using the tagline. Maybe (and I'm thinking out loud here) we could format it such that the disclaimer text is obviously separated from the tagline? e.g.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ...(blank spaces)... All articles are user provided in a collaborative effort.
-- Sitearm | Talk 18:00, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

You said: "All articles are user provided in a collaborative effort." is very dry-sounding. Surely we can do better. What is your alternative? It has to stand separate as in "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." space "DISCLAIMING TEXT HERE" -- Sitearm | Talk 00:17, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

  • Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
  • Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")
Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:16, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Tagline2 ?[edit]

How hard would it be to add a MediaWiki:Tagline2 page with a one-liner that shows up at the top right of every article page? First text to go in there would be "All articles are user-provided." or "All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort." Per Wyatts this allows us to separate concern about tagline from concern about advisement of readers. Per me this gives a separate WikiMedia structure area to fine-tune the text. Edits and reverts can be focused there instead of the main tagline. -- Sitearm | Talk 16:04, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

NOTE: I am making this into a section so I can point to it from the proposed page Talk -- Sitearm | Talk 01:39, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

I have made a change request here. -- Sitearm | Talk 20:41, 2005 August 11 (UTC)


From User talk:Sitearm[edit]

There is much opposition to changing tagline[edit]

I think the opposition by Jimbo Wales to changing the tagline effectively kills the idea. As the founder of Wikipedia, his opinion carries exceptional weight (and he can probably make unilateral decisions if he really wants to.) I still want to do something to add a disclaimer statement at the top of every article, but I believe we will have to find a way to do it without modifying the tagline itself. --Wyatts 16:05, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Responded at User_talk:Wyatts#Tagline_proposal -- Sitearm | Talk 16:27, 2005 August 8 (UTC)

I know the best place for the disclaimer. Somewhere where it will be obvious yet discrete.

My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Log out
My talk Preferences My watchlist My contributions Disclaimer Log out

Another alternative is:

  • Main Page
  • Community portal
  • Current events
  • Recent changes
  • Random article
  • Help
  • Disclaimer
  • Contact us
  • Donations

Either of these two options will be better than the way it is now. What is the big deal with the aesthetics anyway? David D. (Talk) 05:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: Added these two versions to main page. Moved disclaimer prominence reason for change from position 3 to 2. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 15:59, 2005 August 10 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

  • Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
  • Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")
Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 03:19, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

"Free"[edit]

you said: RESPONSE: There is a discussion comment about the word "free" included under reason 1 for change, and the word is actually removed in proposed change version 11. Will keep these additional comments here for the record. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 22:23, 2005 August 9 (UTC)

Well, isn't that extremely suitable. Is it mere coincidence that Syme was working on the Eleventh Edition of the Newspeak dictionary in Nineteen Eighty-Four? "[The] definitive edition."
We're getting the language into its final shape -- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else. When we've finished with it, people like you will have to learn it all over again. You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day.
The word "free" in particular was discussed in the appendix on Newspeak:
The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds'. It could not be used in its old sense of ' politically free' or 'intellectually free' since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless.
In short, I very strongly oppose the motion to remove "free", describing intellectual freedom, from Wikipedia's tagline. — David Remahl 12:21, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Free" response[edit]

RESPONSE: You said: the motion to remove "free", describing intellectual freedom, from Wikipedia's tagline. This is a misread of the proposal, which is to add a separate statement, "All articles are user-provided in a collaborative effort." at page top right, next to the current statement, "From WikiPedia, the free encyclopedia." at page top left. Although one version counterproposed by contributers removed the clause, "the free encyclopedia", there were no other supporting comments. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 12:40, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
P.S. Have added intellectual freedom interpretation of "free" to discussion under reason for change 3. Note the discussion is about further clarifying what "free" means. -- Sitearm | Talk 12:51, 2005 August 12 (UTC)


From User talk:Angela[edit]

Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline[edit]

A change to the current Wikipedia tagline has been proposed for discussion and adoption at Wikipedia:Proposed update of MediaWiki:Tagline. Interested contributers please visit this page. WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT -- Sitearm | Talk 18:42, 2005 August 6 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer it the way it is since every page already has at least one disclaimer link. Perhaps there should be a vote since there seems no agreement at the moment? Angela. 22:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The proposal has been updated:

  • Leave current top-left text as is ("From WikiPedia the free encyclopedia.")
  • Add new top-right text ("All articles are user-contributed in a collaborative effort.")
Interested contributors please comment here. Thank you for your help! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:04, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

P.S. I will look into the vote process. Thanks! -- Sitearm | Talk 02:10, 2005 August 12 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Proposed_update_of_MediaWiki:Tagline/Archive01&oldid=1142588346"