Wikisource talk:General disclaimer
Here is a draft for a alterration of the disclaimer taking into account that we are hosting texts which have restrictions on use and modification:
No consequential damages can be sought against Wikisource, as it is a voluntary association of individuals developed freely to create various open source online educational, cultural and informational resources. This information is being given to you gratuitously and there is no agreement or understanding between you and Wikisource regarding your use or modification of this information beyond the licensing message provided with the information; neither is anyone at Wikisource responsible should someone change, edit, modify or remove any information that you may post on Wikisource or any of its associated projects.
Also be advised that Wikisource may include famous medical works. These works, while well-known, may be incorrect or out of date. Please contact a qualified medical professional for medical advice.
Thank you for spending the time to read this page, and please enjoy your experience at Wikisource.
Does anyone has any comments about this change. I am not a lawyer and I hesitant to change what seems to be a leagal document.--BirgitteSB 16:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I have niggle that sometime or the other the roof will fall in on WS because some of our content, and I feel we must be much more proactive on locking texts. Bearing in mind the vandalism and edit wars that occur on WP concerning religious, political and moral themes, I feel it will be only a matter of time before it starts to happen here. I have not made a thorough search, but we have texts relating to many religions, many political views and some texts that people might view as being morally questionable. And want to take action to remove or vandalise them. I am personally liberal, and while I might not wish to read some of this stuff, I defend WS's duty to maintain these texts unaltered as they were written so that others can make use of them. The 'General Disclaimer' and 'About WS' pages might not be the best places to spell it out, but I feel we ought to make it clear somewhere what our role is. Apwoolrich 18:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- How do you think we should go about locking texts?--BirgitteSB 21:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
This text about trademarks is missing (From w:Wikipedia:General disclaimer)
vi interwiki and License
Please add vi:Wikisource:Phủ nhận chung to interwiki links. By the way, Wikimedia projects have been changed to CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but the License section still says that "compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License." Should it be corrected? Vinhtantran (talk) 03:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done . Not sure about the second issue, which may require a bit of discussion. Cirt (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Would it be reasonable to say something like this in the disclaimer?
"Wikisource, its contributors, or the Wikimedia Foundation do not necessarily promote any particular opinion or viewpoint represented in hosted texts."
Many people may come to Wikisource and find certain texts here disagreeable or even offensive, without understanding that Wikisource is a collection of texts presented as-is, so they might get the crazy idea that Wikisource somehow promotes the POV of all the ideas in every text it hosts. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
- That's already covered at Wikisource:What is Wikisource? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
The "Accuracy" section seems to mostly talk about whether hosted content contains accurate statements of facts.
However, seeing Wikisource as a repository of texts compiled from diverse outside sources rather than as an original reference work, I'm more concerned about whether hosted works accurately reflect their original state at publication. Is the content here held or intended to be completely free of original edits, omissions, and additions?
Should a mention be made about the textual integrity of hosted works? Is this discussed or examined elsewhere?