Mailing List Archive

> I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
> like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
> about my proposed project:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
> whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
> to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.

Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
mailing list at
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l

Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine

Angela.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:

>Hello, fellow Wikimedians!
>
>I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
>like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
>about my proposed project:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
>whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
>to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
>
>Sincerely,
>Messedrocker
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l@wikimedia.org
>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
Hi Messedrocker,
Your proposal is certainly interesting. My only question is what would
the project provide that could not be achieved by say a portal on Wikipedia?
I am guessing that it is madatory that the information comes from
verifiable sources in the scientific community and not just some Joe
down the street who wants to give the recipe for his grandma's
concoction to cure the flu to the world for free.
Cheers,
Nathan (Cartman02au)
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:

>Hello, fellow Wikimedians!
>
>I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
>like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell you
>about my proposed project:
>http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read the
>whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first post
>to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.

Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with more
specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it. As
for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if an
article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the draft
versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure"
version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but vandalism
on a medical wiki could be life threatening.

Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted within
a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it
would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.

And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.

Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources.
WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a
medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia would
serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a
supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is, how
to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this medical
wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous key.
There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a wiki
dedicated to such a topic.

Thank you for your interest in the topic.

Messedrocker

On 6/17/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
> > like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell
> you
> > about my proposed project:
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read
> the
> > whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first
> post
> > to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
>
> Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
> mailing list at
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
>
> Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
> should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
> Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
>
> Angela.
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

--- James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.
>
> Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with more
> specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it. As
> for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if an
> article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the draft
> versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure"
> version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but vandalism
> on a medical wiki could be life threatening.
>
> Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted within
> a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it
> would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.
>
> And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.
>
> Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources.
> WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a
> medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia would
> serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a
> supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is, how
> to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this medical
> wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous key.
> There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a wiki
> dedicated to such a topic.
>
> Thank you for your interest in the topic.
>
> Messedrocker
>
> On 6/17/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I would
> > > like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously tell
> > you
> > > about my proposed project:
> > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please read
> > the
> > > whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my first
> > post
> > > to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to do.
> >
> > Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
> > mailing list at
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
> >
> > Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
> > should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
> > Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
> > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
> >
> > Angela.

Maybe this project would be useful. But I disagree with protecting the articles unless it is deemed "finished" and the projects want to have a "stable" version. The other reason is not good and will increase the risk of liability. No one should be taking medical advice from on line medical articles. We must be careful that Wikimedia project(s) do not send mixed signals on this point.

On English speaking projects, the biggest need is for medical articles to be adapted for low literacy readers. I know that most medical articles are well above the reading level of the average US citizen. I’m certain that similar problems exist with other English speaking countries too.

Sydney Poore aka FloNight

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

So you're proposing that initially, articles should be developed in the main
namespace until "completion," then additions are to be proposed?

On 6/17/06, poore5@adelphia.net <poore5@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
> --- James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Thank you, Angela, for responding to my question.
> >
> > Call it what you wish, but really it's more of a medical assistant with
> more
> > specific information, such as how to handle it and how to identify it.
> As
> > for the unwikiness, that's really for liability purposes -- imagine if
> an
> > article was vandalized to say cyanide cures cancer. The idea of the
> draft
> > versions is to facilitate article improvement while keeping the "secure"
> > version free of vandalism. I really wish we wouldn't have to, but
> vandalism
> > on a medical wiki could be life threatening.
> >
> > Maybe years after the advent of this wiki, when vandalism is reverted
> within
> > a second, we can allow open-editing of the main space page. However, it
> > would take years for the wiki to have such a level of activity.
> >
> > And Nathan, thank you for responding to my proposal, too.
> >
> > Yes, it would be indeed mandatory to use completely verifiable sources.
> > WebMD, for example, would be a great reference. The difference between a
> > medical wiki and Wikipedia is particularly the details -- Wikipedia
> would
> > serve to go into specific details (and we could link to them as a
> > supplement), while this wiki simply serves to say what the disease is,
> how
> > to determine it, and how to treat it. What we could also do on this
> medical
> > wiki that wouldn't probably do well on Wikipedia is start a dichotomous
> key.
> > There are many things we could do, and they would be more welcome on a
> wiki
> > dedicated to such a topic.
> >
> > Thank you for your interest in the topic.
> >
> > Messedrocker
> >
> > On 6/17/06, Angela <beesley@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I am Messedrocker -- you may know me from Wikipedia or Wikinews. I
> would
> > > > like to introduce myself to the mailing list, and simultaneously
> tell
> > > you
> > > > about my proposed project:
> > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Medical_dictionary_wiki -- please
> read
> > > the
> > > > whole thing before you criticise. I hope it's not bad form for my
> first
> > > post
> > > > to be a shameless spamvertisement, but that's what Meta told me to
> do.
> > >
> > > Firstly, you might be interested in the (not very active) medical wiki
> > > mailing list at
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedical-l
> > >
> > > Secondly, with the exception of the unwiki suggestion that all pages
> > > should be protected from editing, wouldn't your project duplicate
> > > Wiktionary? There's already a category for medical terms at
> > > http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Medicine
> > >
> > > Angela.
>
> Maybe this project would be useful. But I disagree with protecting the
> articles unless it is deemed "finished" and the projects want to have a
> "stable" version. The other reason is not good and will increase the risk of
> liability. No one should be taking medical advice from on line medical
> articles. We must be careful that Wikimedia project(s) do not send mixed
> signals on this point.
>
> On English speaking projects, the biggest need is for medical articles to
> be adapted for low literacy readers. I know that most medical articles are
> well above the reading level of the average US citizen. I'm certain that
> similar problems exist with other English speaking countries too.
>
> Sydney Poore aka FloNight
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

I would like to echo FloNight here. I'm not sure we really want to be
providing medical advice as it opens WMF to a large degree of
liability. And if it is just a dictionary of terms, well, like Angela
and Nathan said, wouldn't it be duplicating work? Thanks. --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively
verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people
-know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary"
when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to
make it go away."

On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I would like to echo FloNight here. I'm not sure we really want to be
> providing medical advice as it opens WMF to a large degree of
> liability. And if it is just a dictionary of terms, well, like Angela
> and Nathan said, wouldn't it be duplicating work? Thanks. --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively
> verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people
> -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary"
> when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to
> make it go away."

Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

How is Wikipedia better than World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica? How is
Wikinews better than CNN.com? How is Wiktionary better than dictionary.com?
The idea is that when Wikimedia starts a project, we're the copyleft
alternative to the ideal corporate source we're getting information from.
The information Wikimedia publishes is for all the people with Internet
access, and eventually the entire world.

On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using
> exclusively
> > verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where
> people
> > -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical
> dictionary"
> > when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how
> to
> > make it go away."
>
> Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Anyways, I think we should focus on a name. Apparently WikiMD is taken, so
how does MedWiki or WikiMed or WikiMedicine sound?

On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How is Wikipedia better than World Book or Encyclopaedia Britannica? How
> is Wikinews better than CNN.com? How is Wiktionary better than
> dictionary.com? The idea is that when Wikimedia starts a project, we're
> the copyleft alternative to the ideal corporate source we're getting
> information from. The information Wikimedia publishes is for all the people
> with Internet access, and eventually the entire world.
>
> On 6/17/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using
> > exclusively
> > > verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where
> > people
> > > -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical
> > dictionary"
> > > when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and
> > how to
> > > make it go away."
> >
> > Okay, then how would it differ or be better than WebMD? --LV
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On 6/17/06, James Hare <messedrocker@gmail.com> wrote:
> The idea I came up with for preventing liability would be using exclusively
> verifiable resources for research, i.e. something like WebMD where people
> -know- it's good. I guess it was a mistake to call it a "medical dictionary"
> when it's more of a "guide to finding out if you have disease X and how to
> make it go away."

That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia
is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the
emergency medical hologram.

Kelly
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

On Sun, June 18, 2006 05:55, Kelly Martin wrote:
> That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia
> is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the
> emergency medical hologram.

Can I give an even simpler warning/worry?

At the moment we have students complaining that they were marked down in
essays for getting things wrong, and their response is "But it must be
true - I found it on Wikipedia!"

What happens when someone reads something on WikiMed - the medical
information that anyone can edit - (or whatever it gets called) and finds
that what they read wasn't accurate and someone is injured, maimed, or
even dies? Don't say it won't ever happen, in some countries people sue
because their coffee is too hot. It will. There are plenty of medical info
sites out there, but they don't permit drive-by editors. Us doing so would
be a very dangerous step away from behaving in a legally and medically
responsible way, imho.

Which is a pity, as otherwise I liked the idea as being a way to find the
info without being 'attacked' by so many adverts!

Alison Wheeler
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

That's what's so hard.

My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that
weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki. Having
a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability and
would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.

What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but
should keep us pretty safe.

On 6/18/06, Alison Wheeler <wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, June 18, 2006 05:55, Kelly Martin wrote:
> > That seems like a fundamentally bad idea from the get-go. Wikimedia
> > is probably not the best entity to sponsor the creation of the
> > emergency medical hologram.
>
> Can I give an even simpler warning/worry?
>
> At the moment we have students complaining that they were marked down in
> essays for getting things wrong, and their response is "But it must be
> true - I found it on Wikipedia!"
>
> What happens when someone reads something on WikiMed - the medical
> information that anyone can edit - (or whatever it gets called) and finds
> that what they read wasn't accurate and someone is injured, maimed, or
> even dies? Don't say it won't ever happen, in some countries people sue
> because their coffee is too hot. It will. There are plenty of medical info
> sites out there, but they don't permit drive-by editors. Us doing so would
> be a very dangerous step away from behaving in a legally and medically
> responsible way, imho.
>
> Which is a pity, as otherwise I liked the idea as being a way to find the
> info without being 'attacked' by so many adverts!
>
> Alison Wheeler
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

So is every single edit going to be researched? If I were to come in
switch a dosage of some medicine from 10mg to 100mg, throw up a junk
source to WebMD, is someone who might not intricately know the
specific medications going to go to each source and check even the
most minor of edits?

Don't take this as huge criticism, I am just looking for fundamental
flaws. Thanks.
--LV
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Let's assume we're going to go with the editable-drafts-protected-mainspace
plan.

If I were checking the edits of a page, I would do each individual edit at a
time. I'd take a look at the addition to the page, check out the source they
supplied, and make sure that the source and the edit say the same thing. If
the source doesn't justify the addition, the addition is removed. If there
are no sources, it's removed, no questions asked. If the source justifies
the edit, it gets approved and added to the mainspace version. It wouldn't
be that hard: all you have to do is go to the source listed and make sure
that it all checks out. If it's hard to tell, then it's best to withhold the
information and contact the editor. Ideally, once an edit is made to a
draft, an administrator should take a look at the individual edit and check
it. For that reason, it'd be good to make sure there's a good proportion of
administrators to regular users to expedite the process.

Alternatively, we could create a new level of users that would be capable of
editing the main space: they could receive this status if they have a good
history of editing. This set of users wouldn't even have to make their own
edits on the drafts; they could simply edit the main space version (but once
they mess up, they'd better be ready to fix it and apologize). The benefit
of this middle-point between administrators and regular users is that if
they're trusted to make useful edits, but not necessarily trusted with admin
tools, they can receive this status.

To answer your question, Lord Voldemort, the accuracy on the wiki (that is,
the main space, as opposed to the drafts) depends on how dedicated the
administrator is. Or the slightly-elevated user, if we implement that
system. If we wisely appoint these people, we won't be disappointed. I'm
sure we have people motivated to work on such a daring endeavor. I know I
am.

On 6/18/06, Lord Voldemort <lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> So is every single edit going to be researched? If I were to come in
> switch a dosage of some medicine from 10mg to 100mg, throw up a junk
> source to WebMD, is someone who might not intricately know the
> specific medications going to go to each source and check even the
> most minor of edits?
>
> Don't take this as huge criticism, I am just looking for fundamental
> flaws. Thanks.
> --LV
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:

>Alternatively, we could create a new level of users that would be capable of
>editing the main space: they could receive this status if they have a good
>history of editing. This set of users wouldn't even have to make their own
>edits on the drafts; they could simply edit the main space version (but once
>they mess up, they'd better be ready to fix it and apologize). The benefit
>of this middle-point between administrators and regular users is that if
>they're trusted to make useful edits, but not necessarily trusted with admin
>tools, they can receive this status.
>
>To answer your question, Lord Voldemort, the accuracy on the wiki (that is,
>the main space, as opposed to the drafts) depends on how dedicated the
>administrator is. Or the slightly-elevated user, if we implement that
>system. If we wisely appoint these people, we won't be disappointed. I'm
>sure we have people motivated to work on such a daring endeavor. I know I
>am.
>
You have an idealised view of how a volunteer organization works. Fact
checking is detailed, time-consuming and tedious work. Volunteers like
to work on projects of their own, and no amount of appointing will
result in what you expect unless you are willing to pay these people.

Ec

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

James Hare wrote:

>That's what's so hard.
>
>My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that
>weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki. Having
>a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability and
>would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.
>
>What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but
>should keep us pretty safe.
>
Your proposal would likely increase our exposure to liability, not
decrease it. As long as the public is _clearly_ informed that the
information in a medical article is not necessarily the product of
professionals we are probably better off than if we gave people a false
sense of security about the reliability of the articles. Remember too,
how people interpret such written material often has no relation to what
was actually written or what the author intended. Do not underestimate
people's capacity to misread information, and use that as a basis for
starting a lawsuit.

Ec



_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Of course we'd have a disclaimer. Quite an apparent disclaimer -- perhaps in
MediaWiki:Sitenotice. I wouldn't allow it any other way, nor would the
wikilawyers. I think having a disclaimer that the information we present is
merely background information, and professional advice is like 350 times
better, would help us be safe (and help them from hurting themselves).

On 6/19/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge@telus.net> wrote:
>
> James Hare wrote:
>
> >That's what's so hard.
> >
> >My plan has been to have a protected mainspace and editable drafts that
> >weren't obvious to the public eye, but that was denounced as unwiki.
> Having
> >a freely-editable website, however, introduces us to extreme liability
> and
> >would make Jimmy Wales's head explode if it were to happen.
> >
> >What we need is a middle ground -- one that's not awfully anti-wiki but
> >should keep us pretty safe.
> >
> Your proposal would likely increase our exposure to liability, not
> decrease it. As long as the public is _clearly_ informed that the
> information in a medical article is not necessarily the product of
> professionals we are probably better off than if we gave people a false
> sense of security about the reliability of the articles. Remember too,
> how people interpret such written material often has no relation to what
> was actually written or what the author intended. Do not underestimate
> people's capacity to misread information, and use that as a basis for
> starting a lawsuit.
>
> Ec
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l@wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l