User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer

Direct edits to the proposed template are welcome, as are suggestions/feedback here. alanyst 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial

Heading out for a busy day-- please ping me if I forget to show up tomorrow or next! And thank you SO MUCH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; no rush. I've made a few versions for comparison; as more feedback comes in I'll try to refine them further. alanyst 19:00, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about Version D

I think it captures the essence. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that the KISS principle works best in this case, and has a greater chance of being accepted by the community. Let's face it-- we will have a huge dogfight on our hands with the WMF, and we will have to rely on the community to override them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. "Do not rely on Wikipedia" is perhaps a bit too abbreviated: after all, some folks do rely on Wikipedia for their daily dose of online drama, or for fodder for mockery, or for an outlet for their inner proofreader or election judge or image restorer or troll.... I'd prefer to retain the "...for guidance in important medical, financial, or legal matters" bit just so the disclaimer at the top of the article isn't mistaken for an abstract philosophical value statement on the project as a whole. alanyst 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anthony's version may be too brief, but we should aim for brevity. I think the main thing we need to convey is the "anyone can edit" aspect. If we can do that in a few words ... that is, overcome the public's idea that someone actually checks this bs and it isn't a big online social game. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Version E; does that advance in that direction? (You guys are absolutely welcome to directly tweak that page and/or make new versions for discussion, btw.) alanyst 17:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more interested in getting other opinions (I know what I think!!!) How do you think we might get more initial feedback? Should I query my talk page watchers? It will be a huge fight, so we need to see what initial support we may have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game for that, or if there's a more standard process for drafting and discussing proposed sitewide templates (I confess ignorance in that respect) then we could migrate to that venue and then invite discussion. Hmm. Let's proceed this way: you ping a few of those whom you think would be interested, and then if we can reach a localized consensus on a version then we can move it into Template space and issue a broader request for comments. Sound okay? alanyst 17:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... but I'm already wiped out for today, this Education stuff is killin' me. Later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Earlier discussions

User talk:MastCell, my post where I am sick to death of this,[1] User talk:SandyGeorgia (Morality)[2] and WP:ENB (Test case).[3] All a result of my frustration with the impact of student editing on our medical content. And now, back to my nap. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Best is Version F: Because short and plain- all else too long, legalistic, bureaucratic.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version G

I've just added a Version G. Wikipedia information is probably right after all... Carrite (talk) 03:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice suggestion. Having the heading/initial statement in bold and instruction in italic is less shouty. Would it perhaps be worth having a "(More info...)" or some such on the end? — Scott • talk 11:22, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I like this version. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

another option

Normally when I see disclaimers like this, they go something like:

"The information on this page is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical or legal advice."

CorporateM (Talk) 19:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

well, yes, but that would make "us" like any other source of information. The unique problem with Wikipedia is that any jerk on the internet can write it, and that is what the general public is still not aware of. Average Joe out there still thinks some sort of "experts" are writing in here, or that the articles are vetted. The idea was to get across the RandyFromBoise issue. Particularly because Google pulls up our medical information typically first, and our medical information is getting worse and worse by the day, thanks to the efforts of the WMF via its "Education" programs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the problem may be different, but the issue is the same, that the information should not be relied upon to make medical decisions. CorporateM (Talk) 15:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're missing the point--the issue is not the same. This evening I decided to pick a medical condition at random and check it out. I chose appendicitis. Checking the talk page for a suggestion, I took a look at the lab section and it sounded like it had been written by someone that read some medical stuff here and there and added it to the article. No references were offered and the information was not accurate. This is what we're talking about, not just the usual "should not be relied upon to make medical decisions".

And again, Sandy is correct, many of our readers think that someone checks the info in the med articles here. Though apparently at least one person that frequents Jimbo's page figures they're just morons that we'd be better off without. Gandydancer (talk) 02:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yea, but speaking of morons ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer templates in other languages

At least two other-language Wikipedias have medical disclaimer templates that link to specific and explicit disclaimers for medical topics.

[list replaced with table below]

— Scott • talk 20:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that template placed in articles? At the top? Bottom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans put it at the bottom (de:Allergie), while the Portuguese put it in "Treatment" sections (pt:Tosse#Tratamento). — Scott • talk 13:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to know; thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Looking at the inter-language links, there are quite a few more. Below are the ones on some of the larger Wikipedias, for comparison. There were ones on Japanese and Korean, but they appear to have changed their site policies to no longer use them.

Randomly, we also have a Template:Disclaimer medisch lemma here, which seems to have been created by a passing Dutch editor. (Also, for giggles, check out the first version, which was presumably translated by a computer... :) ) — Scott • talk 18:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful. If not for a waiting turkey, I'd barnstar the heck outta ya! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:) Hope you had a good turkey day, I'm still not sure that I'm ever going to need to eat again! — Scott • talk 12:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medical disclaimer templates

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

Let's get organized

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:

Focus. It's easier to make a case for a medical disclaimer than for other content, other language Wikipedias have one, and the case for a medical disclaimer has been made at the education noticeboard, on Jimbo's talk, and on external sites. Why don't we nix for now the expansion to legal, financial, and focus our efforts on one area? If that is accepted by the community, expansion will be easier. I am the principle author of a medical FA, and I am willing to install a medical disclaimer at the top of it, so that gives us a medical test case. Could we agree to limit our sample disclaimers for now to medical? I fear that if we bite off more than we can chew (going for medical, legal, and financial), we'll have a harder time getting it through the community.
Internal agreement. We need to get some agreement in here before taking this proposal forward. I strongly believe that what we put at the top of our articles needs to link to the full site disclaimer, because the first paragraph of our full site disclaimer covers the "anyone can edit" aspect.
I don't like the current version E because we don't know how Joe Q. Public interprets the word "reliable".
I think Version A is too big.
I think Version D is too vague.
While Version F is true, unlikely the community will accept it.
I don't agree with Version G at all-- it doesn't cover what we need to convey. Any medical website contains that kind of disclaimer, so readers will gloss over it. Our disclaimer needs to be pointing more to the "RandyFromBoise" aspect-- that is, what you read in here is worse than the normal medical website which has a G-version disclaimer.

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)[reply]

I endorse all of that. What about this:

Version H

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Purrrrrrrr-fect. Can we get agreement here to move forward with this version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a GA I'd like to see this on. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get some agreement from those following this sandbox, then we can take this to a next broader step, and then (barring outright rejection by the broader community) I fully intend to install it on FA Tourette syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The principle editor there will not be offended :) :) Let's get moving !!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are we actually waiting for? I'm the main editor at Cancer pain, and I feel I have a moral duty to put a disclaimer there now. Don't you? I'm offering you the opportunity to be the first person to deploy this thing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with Version H (which can always be tweaked later if necessary) and also happy with its being deployed forthwith. If others object, then we'll see what happens. NB I take it that in the medium term (?) it'd be nice to have a bot to put this on all MED articles? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I've gone ahead and added it to Cancer pain. I guess we'll need a subset version, though, right? I am not a template expert (nor someone with much time on his hands right now), so can I leave that to you? (Whoever "you" may be ;) ). --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jb. --18:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting to at least get consensus at WT:MED-- strength in numbers. To prevent a failed launch. And to move the template out of userspace ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was actually waiting for your thoughts. Ugh. I think I'm just very very tired of proposing stuff at WT:MED. If you want to go that route, feel free to remove the template from Cancer pain. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave it ... I'd like to see who dares remove it (as in, is that person willing to be responsible for the text?). I'm going to take your edited version to WT:MED now (but we have our share of self-important cranks over there ... ). WT:MED thread coming up ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not happy with version H, too self-deprecating - just the sort of thing that dumps shit over everyone who's edited medical articles to date. Many webpages written by so-called experts and official bodies have errors in them too. I've been reading too many peer-reviewed papers with gaping logic-holes in them lately. We need to clarify with the comparator, which is getting off one's arse and going to see a medical practitioner. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I like it! Not sure we were ready for launch ... we shoulda figured that out over here instead of over there :/ Oh, well ... we shall see. You're a gem! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:10, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version K

Support K in a trial of 50 to 100 articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support It'll do. No trial, though. This should be on every article with health information now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is too weak. I can't support any disclaimer for medical articles that doesn't explicitly refer to the reliability of medical content. — Scott • talk 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{irony}} ~~Tosh and nonsense~~. It says it all with minimal cognitive dissonance. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC) Irony template added 12:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was ruder than I expect from you. "Cognitive dissonance"? What does that even mean? The whole point of these things is to jolt the reader into a state of heightened awareness that what they're reading may be wrong or even dangerous, not to remind them of what they already know (that this is an editable encyclopedia). No casual reader is going to click on "high quality sources"; that is a waste of everyone's time. — Scott • talk 14:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Scott. That was half tongue-in-cheek; I was carrying over my spleen from elsewhere. By "cognitive dissonance" I meant it is less likely to shock other medical editors than, for instance, the disclaimer presently on Cancer pain. I want a disclaimer about the reliability of our content on every medical page, but I don't care if the disclaimer itself contains the word "medical" if it is sitting on top of a medical article. Whether or not the disclaimer also contains an invitation to edit is a distraction, added to the debate by those opposed to a disclaimer. I don't oppose such an invitation, (in fact I wasted a considerable amount of time on such a proposal some time back) but I oppose the deployment of a disclaimer being contingent on some measurable effect of the invitation to edit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only reservation is about the use of the word "errors", because it doesn't also include the possibility of FRINGE or WEIGHT considerations, which may in some cases be more directly relevant. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

More than willing to accept the draft as a starting point - the stated "reservation" is not in my opinion just that, and it does not at least in my eyes rise to the level of an "objection". John Carter (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per User:SandyGeorgia, let's not sink this over the color of the bike shed. It doesn't matter whether the warning contains the word "medical" if the warning is sitting on top of a medical article (after all, the warning applies to all content, not just explicitly medical content.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is now some awareness in the general community that MEDRS has been an effective guideline, and that medical articles generally require extra vigilance (you can't take 200mg too much of Louisa May Alcott), so perhaps we would get less resistance, more acceptance, with a medicine-specific disclaimer. The proposal above links to MEDRS, I wouldn't care if we added the word medical. I want whatever is most likely to be accepted by the community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, my only interest in this topic is a medicine-specific disclaimer. A wider reliability disclaimer is going to be more controversial and necessarily attract far more discussion than has been had by just the participants on this page. — Scott • talk 15:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support If it's a start if there is opposition to stronger ones. Personally, I would prefer something that says "If you are experiencing medical symptoms call your doctor. Do not make health related decisions based on content here." Practically every doctors office phone system in the U.S. starts off with "If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911" and that is a call to a health care professional. It's not unrealistic to think that the people who would call their own doctor before 911 might look up Wikipedia before calling their doctor. We need a "Hang up and call the doctor" type of statement. --DHeyward (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version 911DHeyward

Next version

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)[reply]

Version CL

I have a problem with "us", suggest: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version CL modified

Yep - happy to drop the 'us' Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalker's contribution:

added a line break to move less important information to the second line, and de-bolded the second line;
moved the link to the disclaimer from "anyone" to "do not rely on it", which seems more semantically appropriate, and the link highlight functions as a general highlight for the most important part of the message;
added a hyphen to "high-quality";
experimented with color—my concern with this "ambox" style is that because it looks just like the 150 other warning templates, readers won't gloss this one as any different, and therefore not process it. At the least it should be the first ambox on the page, and should have its own color, which is to say not one of the colors used in the series shown at {{ambox#type}}. Presumably it will need a standard width.
I'd be more blunt with the word "it". Wikipedia, "it", is an abstraction. Let's assume an average reader who doesn't even understand what web site they're really viewing, much less how this web site is different from the last page they looked at elsewhere on the web (this is the reality of "average readers"!). What does "don't rely on it" mean to them? The call to action is to not rely on this page you're looking at right now... e.g. "Please do not rely on this article/page for medical advice".

Riggr Mortis (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dog's a genius :) :) Much better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks fine to me, though I'd make the link go to the medical disclaimer, rather than the general. So:

Thoughts? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Love it. Good work, you two. — Scott • talk 20:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking of something similar - maybe a deeper box colour even - a shade darker still, and it right-aligned with the infobox. But yeah, anyway, moving in the right direction. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see an admin hit four reverts at cancer pain, with no warning or sanction. Strange place, this Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Link) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grrr. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect; the wording, Anthonyhcole, not the reverts. ;) Riggr Mortis (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Version L

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)[reply]

Suggestion

Quoting WP:No disclaimers in articles#Why disclaimers should not be used:

They are redundant with the disclaimer linked at the bottom of every page.
Wikipedia is not censored.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is not a how-to guide.
It is hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (e.g., what defines an "adult content" article, which varies dramatically by culture and individual). Allowing some disclaimers would generate a significant overhead of disputes regarding where to draw the line; this draws editors away from more productive tasks.
The lack of the disclaimer on certain pages as opposed to others might open Wikipedia to lawsuits.
They take up large amounts of page space when used in banner form.

If we compare this banner to the list above:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Draft RFC started

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)[reply]

RFC launched

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/RFC on medical disclaimer SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward

Moved from my talk page. — Scott • talk 12:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The suggestion by someone (I forget) to put the disclaimer in the left hand side bar is more feasible as a tab imo. Lesion (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know. It was Anomie. I supported that option and still do. But there's some opposition to it on the grounds that it wouldn't be visible enough. Acer (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure could be convinced by a mockup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There you go. Did that on paint so bear with me... Also added the sidebar link Acer (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather have a look first at the idea mentioned by Lesion, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like the idea of a tab, because those are pretty much reserved for interactive tasks - it breaks the spirit of the interface to use one. Now, maybe if you want the disclaimer to be extra super obvious you could have DISCLAIMER written in the top row without a tab, but even so, it should be out of the way of the other tabs (so many people have edited Wikipedia for so long, I can't justify inconveniencing them by even moving a tab from its established position) You could do this at the left too, though; besides, I don't think we need them that visible. Wnt (talk) 04:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could live with that. I'll support if it gets traction. (Think the red could be a just tad less bright? The letters are hard to make out) Acer (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't really want something that obvious - besides, come to think of it, any time the word "red" is mentioned eventually someone pipes up and says it's all wrong on account of color blindness. I don't pretend to understand the guidelines on that point. You can see the CSS if you edit this section - it's not hard to look up CSS to do any given effect in a web search. DISCLAIMER , DISCLAIMER , Disclaimer , whatever. Wnt (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Acer ... thanks for the ping and the suggestion.

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)[reply]

"I'm more than a bit frustrated that we don't seem to have a central place for pounding out new ideas" --> Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) seems intended for exactly that. What you say about disclaimers is why I think they are a dead end. Even if we could make every reader take a test that proved they have read the disclaimer, I doubt it would materially change most readers' behavior. Things that could make a material difference in my opinion include ways to alert readers that an article has been changed recently (maybe alter the View History tabs in some attention-getting way) and encouraging medical professionals to review articles and report and fix errors. And of course the hard work you are doing in fixing articles is greatly appreciated.--agr (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Village pump idea lab will help in this case, for a number of reasons that I won't belabor. The readers who are not familiar with how Wikipedia works (that is, the "anyone can edit" nature) and who may be misled by our medical content are not aware of and do not care if an article has changed or not-- they think it was written by an expert and is vetted. Those of us who are aware and follow recent changes can never keep up. We have multiple FAs and GAs that have not been fixed for years. There are more errors and problems out there than 50 editors just like Doc James, me, everyone else could fix in a year-- that is the problem we need to address, and plugging away at trying to fix all of 'em is worse than putting a finger in the dike to hold back the sea. But thank you for the kind words ... most appreciated :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, something like 50% of medical professionals consult Wikipedia. That is a lot of potential dike-plugging fingers. On a smaller scale, I found this document from the Wikimedia Foundation File:Evaluating Wikipedia brochure.pdf which could be updated to mention the concerns we are talking about and be placed where ordinary readers might see it.--agr (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

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)[reply]

I think the time might be right, now, for another run at this. Maybe

RfC #2: Should there be a prominent disclaimer on Wikipedia's medical articles?
If yes,

RfC #3a: What should it say?

RfC #3b: Where should it be?

RfC #3c: How should it look?

Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I may have missed a critical development (I was gone for a long time after the original fail), so I'm not sure why asking the simple question will get a different result? What did I miss? Too many editors think our general disclaimer covers it, so I'm not seeing what has changed. (I sure wish that was not the case ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed, Sandy. But I think the pain from the last experience has dissipated enough for me to confront another attempt. My possibly faulty memory is that a significant majority thought a more prominent disclaimer would be a good idea but it fell over on the details of wording, placement and appearance. But if you and Scott are pessimistic, I probably won't bother. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view was that it fell over because I allowed every Tom Dick and Harry to add another proposal ... so it got muddled! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, see my suggestion below. Peter Damian (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

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)[reply]

Peter Damian you appear to be much more optimistic about Wikipediots than I am :) I think no matter what we do, there are too many in here drinking the kool-aid, unwilling to understand the dangerous reach of a kid in his parents' basement writing medical content. I'm glad to help if someone spearheads a new effort, but I predict that the end result will be that I will wander off in disgust, for a long wikibreak again, only to come back and re-engage because a family member found some ridiculous medical content on Wikipedia. Lather, rinse, repeat! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]