Template talk:HealthDisclaimer/Reasons

[edit] Reasons

I have read the Template:Medical disscussion and I find the arguments for deletion unsatisfactory. Is there any policy that would prohibit retrying a good idea? Moreover, this shouldnt be perceived as a disclaimer, but like a warning. I should have named it warning from the start.
The sentence you mentioned is not POV because there is sufficient evidence, which is reliable and verifiable, that you should check with a physician if you feel bad, even though some people think that witch doctor is better. Stating that we stay on Earth because of gravity is not a POV, even though some people think that Earth simply sucks.

These are the reasons from the No disclaimers policy:

Redundant with the Disclaimer link at the end of every page. Then move the disclaimer to the top and make it visible. In every medical textbook I have seen, there is a disclaimer on the first page (concerning doses etc.). Not on a last page and small.

Hard to define which articles should have a disclaimer (how would you define an "adult article", for instance?) All of them, suitable warning/disclaimer. Make it clear: This page can be edited by an idiot at any moment, you shouldn't trust it with things that are important to you. One of the arguments for "Delete" of Template:Medical discussion was, that only an idiot would trust Wikipedia with important things. See John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy for reference. This also proves, that another disclaimer wouldn't be redundant as you stated. But the possible effects of people trusting wikipedia with their health are anonymous and not popularised, therefore egal to you.

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored.' Warning people that the information is not always accurate is not censorship.

'The lack of the disclaimer on a page might open Wikipedia to lawsuits. Then place a VISIBLE disclaimer on every page. Make special versions for medical legal etc. stuff. But it needs to be visible not small like this.

'By the time you see them, it's too late — the article has already been loaded. And that is a problem because you will still trust the things you are reading so much even if you know that it could be edited by anyone a second ago. Stating "Encyclopedia anyone can edit" is not sufficient as it could require some registration etc to edit it.

WP:NOT is unimportant in this case. Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source of information, and will never be. That needs to be clearly stated somewhere. My objections apply to the medical information because:

- WP is and will always be under constant pressure of homeopaths, healers etc whose income depends on the credibility of their profession. They will always see Wikipedia as a place they can advertise on. Check the history of appropriate articles and you will find the evidence.

- Misleading information about some law will not cost people lives, maybe money. Finding a misleading information on Wikipedia (that looks like a web encyclopedia - and encyclopedias are more or less reliable) could on the other hand cost some lives (and I myself have also seen a patient who was treated by a "healer"). See this example:

- As we have seen on John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy example, it is not true that we don't need a redundant disclaimer because there is one small down there and nobody sane would trust WP anyway (frequent argument from the last Template:Medical disscussion - you don't realise that not many people understand how WP works).

- In place of a disclaimer, the disputed articles usually contain {{totallydisputed}} tag, which then serves as a de facto disclaimer. This should be corrected by using a proper disclaimer.

My suggestion is: Revise the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates policy or put a disclaimer on a top of each page.

ackoz 22:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)