Wikipedia talk:No disclaimer templates/HealthDisclaimer

No parameters, just {HealthDisclaimer}.

{{HealthDisclaimer}}

I created the messagebox because Wikipedia articles are subject to frequent edits by more or less educated editors. V RS rules are not always followed and evidence based approach is frequently deemed unnecessary for the topics in question. The readers (who are searching for information on wikipedia) should be warned, that the information contained in the articles is not always accurate. Moreover, the "anyone can edit" rule shouldn't apply to the health care section, as disinformations can be quite harmful in this place.

I will add it to few articles without discussing it, as I think I'm not breaking any WP policies/rules by this.

If anyone is able to restructure the template so that it looks better, please do. -- Ackoz 09:44, 23 April 2006

This is wikipedia. Anyone who isn't blocked can edit. That isn't going to change. We already have disclaimers. Geni 10:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Geni. What disclaimers are you referring to? -- Fyslee 13:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer.Geni 18:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I had never seen them before. They don't do much good there. -- Fyslee 18:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the first one is linked to from every page.Geni 20:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It's buried, and therefore not redundant. The appropriate disclaimer should be on the appropriate page. -- Fyslee 20:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the disclaimer is insuffient contact the foundation. Otherwise it breaks WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. In any case we have mirrors that strip out templates.Geni 20:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't break WP:NOR (doesn't contain original research), and it doesn't break WP:NPOV, as there is no POV in it (no opinion contained = no POV). We actually discussed the matter with Fyslee, as you could have seen. You acted on your own. Is this because you are an admin? Anyway see the explanation on your talk page. ackoz 20:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's interested in breaking any Wiki policies. Please explain how the template violates those policies. I don't see it. As an admin, it should be easy for you to do this. -- Fyslee 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill" is of course POV (I can find plently of people who claim you should visit a homeopath or witch doctor). Then there is the claim "This is article contains information about HEALTH CARE." I completely reject that claim for articles such as homeopathy and alt med. Then of course we have the style guide Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. Then of course we have the original reseach (rember you can't cite wikipedia as a source) "The information contained in this article should not be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed medical physician." there is a court ruleing that comes close but it only applies to a very limited situation (wikipedia is not a sutible source for a Special Master).Geni 21:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This template should be deleted we have a guidline of no disclaimer templates. JoshuaZ 21:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 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.

• 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 stuff. But it needs to be visible not 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. 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, well 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 have also seen a patient who was treated by a "healer"). See this example:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/332/7547/929-a?etoc

• • As we have seen on John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy example, it is not true that we don't need a disclaimer because there is one small down there and nobody sane would trust WP anyway.

• • In place of a disclaimer, the disputed articles usually contain {{totallydisputed}} tag, which then serves as a de facto disclaimer.

My suggestion is: Revise the Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates policy or put a disclaimer on a top of each page. ackoz 22:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then

1) no it is your POV that there is " sufficient evidence, which is reliable and verifiable, that you should check with a physician if you feel bad" (of course my POV is somewhat simular but I recognise it as a POV)

2)The campian to reintroduce the superior classic skin failed. Raise it on AN/I it may be posible to move the dissclaimer useing the classic skin and I know there is a workaround if not

3)Adds will not be helped by disclaimers. Just be ready to deal with those who wish to make adds.

4)http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/short/332/7547/929-a?etoc the people here followed the advice you gave in your dissclaimer.Geni 22:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A good example of why one should not trust even MDs who use alternative medicine in place of best practice. Using non-MDs who do the same is not a better situation. -- Fyslee 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK then 1) Gravity is a POV because most of living people don't know about it and Reality is a POV because there is a significant minority of mentally ill people. Great reasoning.

2) Great. Thanks for the information. What is the workaround?

3) I agree, but people should be warned.

4) Right, doctors can be idiots too. We all know that.

ackoz 22:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]