Wikipedia disclaimers : humorous, quasi-legal. rarely viewed. touched by lawyers but also by many, many other editors. probably ineffective even when viewed - I used Wikipedia as a backup lab manual in auto-appendectomy class last week and totally forgot about the medical disclaimer I had read a month previous. Luckily noone was hurt. 1. How much should we care about encouraging people to understand the pro/con aspects of Wikipedia's mutability? 2. Most disclaimers are CYA affairs, not intended to inform, merely intended to make lawsuits harder. Is this what we care about? Are we worried about legal liability from a weak disclaimer? Are we worried more about making sure all readers understand the value and risks of information they receive? 3. positively : We can use the time people spend visiting/viewing a disclaimer to educate them a bit about disclaimers in all sorts of knowledge everywhere. A disclaimer that provides background and context for disclaimers in general and those used in reference works in specific. Would that be ok? It would certainly be interesting and empowering, rather than frightening and offensive, as some find the current texts. 4. alternatively : groups that really worry about being sued tend to have longer, even more frightening disclaimers than ours; is it worth finding an eloquently conservative set of disclaimers that enumerates hundreds of specific ways in which Wikipedia should not be used? SJ