CZ Talk:Disclaimer: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>James A. Flippin (Tides Center) |
imported>Chunbum Park mNo edit summary |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Does the Tides Center really need to be mentioned? They don't make any claims as to the veracity of the approved articles either... [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 16:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | Does the Tides Center really need to be mentioned? They don't make any claims as to the veracity of the approved articles either... [[User:James A. Flippin|James A. Flippin]] 16:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT) | ||
This page seems to imply that we ''do'' make a warranty of the correctness of ''approved'' articles. Should we add some weasel words to say that approved articles are more reliable but still not perfect? [[User:Warren Schudy|Warren Schudy]] 11:50, 5 January 2008 (CST) | |||
Yes, eventually. there already is a strong disclaimer on approval notices themselves. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:55, 5 January 2008 (CST) | |||
:As for the Approved articles' disclaimer, is it like how scientists treat theory? No matter how proven a theory is it's still a theory (i.e. gravity, friction, evolution) because, while the scientists' works are very professional, they're professional & modest enough to acknowledge that their works can contain mistakes. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 19:49, 6 July 2008 (CDT)) | |||
Latest revision as of 18:49, 6 July 2008
Does the Tides Center really need to be mentioned? They don't make any claims as to the veracity of the approved articles either... James A. Flippin 16:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
This page seems to imply that we do make a warranty of the correctness of approved articles. Should we add some weasel words to say that approved articles are more reliable but still not perfect? Warren Schudy 11:50, 5 January 2008 (CST)
Yes, eventually. there already is a strong disclaimer on approval notices themselves. --Larry Sanger 11:55, 5 January 2008 (CST)
- As for the Approved articles' disclaimer, is it like how scientists treat theory? No matter how proven a theory is it's still a theory (i.e. gravity, friction, evolution) because, while the scientists' works are very professional, they're professional & modest enough to acknowledge that their works can contain mistakes. (Chunbum Park 19:49, 6 July 2008 (CDT))