-2

Here is what will welcome you on the right side of your screen, pretty much full page for an average laptop:

"Stack Exchange Inc., and its sites including Medical Sciences Stack Exchange, is not a medical practice or healthcare provider and does not provide medical advice. Stack Exchange Inc., and its sites including Medical Sciences Stack Exchange, does not endorse or recommend any healthcare providers that moderate or otherwise contribute to this Site. Consult your own doctor for medical advice. The information and opinions shared here do not reflect the views of Stack Exchange Inc. and are not provided nor endorsed by Stack Exchange Inc. The content on this site is solely provided by individual community members who are not posting on behalf of Stack Exchange Inc.

Do not share personal medical information, medical history or any other specific details about a person's medical symptoms, condition etc (whether yours or someone you know) on this site or any Stack Exchange site. This is a public Site and all posts on this Site can be seen by anyone and may be shared freely with others.

Medical Sciences Stack Exchange is for information exchange only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, individualized diagnosis or treatment by a healthcare provider. Communications on Medical Sciences Stack Exchange are not privileged/private communications and do not create a doctor-patient relationship. Full disclaimer and more information about this site here."

Can we have something this strong when someone visits? This would settle a lot more anxiety to anyone to formulate their questions freely as they wish. Sometimes people formulate hypotheticals in the first person on behalf of a friend. Everything should be deemed a hypothetical. We should declare this. No matter how you claim it is your matter, we cannot verify it, and we will not accept it to be true, and will only assume each of the premises of the hypothetical true for the sake of the hypothetical answer.

If you intend to rely on the advice, you violate the code of conduct of the site.

My hypothetical as to how it could be envisioned based on the above:

"Stack Exchange Inc., and its sites including Law Stack Exchange, is not a legal practice, law firm or legal provider and does not provide legal advice. Stack Exchange Inc., and its sites including Law Stack Exchange, does not endorse or recommend any legal professional, lawyers, attorneys, solicitors etc. that may or may not moderate or otherwise contribute to this Site. Consult your own lawyer for legal advice. The information and opinions shared here do not reflect the views of Stack Exchange Inc. and are not provided nor endorsed by Stack Exchange Inc. The content on this site is solely provided by individual community members who are not posting on behalf of Stack Exchange Inc.

Do not share personal information, legal history or any other specific details about a person's legal issues, suits, prosecution etc (whether yours or someone you know) on this site or any Stack Exchange site. This is a public Site and all posts on this Site can be seen by anyone and may be shared freely with others.

Law Stack Exchange is for information exchange only, and is not a substitute or supplement for legal advice, individualized legal analysis or counseling by an attorney, solicitor etc. Communications on Law Stack Exchange are not privileged/private communications and do not create an attorney-client relationship. Full disclaimer and more information about this site here."


UPDATE:

So I do realized the lack of value in the substance of my question. I think Iñaki Viggers is right, but I still think there is some collateral value to this question.

I had to ask myself if it is so blatantly obvious that our disclaimer is actually more concise and therefore has a stronger chance of enforceability why did I feel the medical one stronger, and here is my finding:

The current disclaimer is placed on nothing more than what appears by its width to height ratio combined with its light yellow color a post-it note. This impression is only exaggerated by the next "post-it" note right below it: "Hot Meta Posts". You don't see anything there on the medical site, just the disclaimer.

I felt strongly compelled to read the medical one. It just attracted my attention and I felt something important is there that I must read.

This is not the same with the legal one. It may be just me. But when you open the medical site, and attempt to submit a question, that "post-it" simply becomes the whole right side of the page. On mobile, it covers your whole screen. You are actually made see it which is giving extra layers of legal force to its enforceability.

Maybe merely expanding the yellow area to the extent similar to that on the medical page would be worth considering. It might look terrible if left empty, and might not be such a great idea.

But I did want to share this from a user's perspective as it may be worth pursuing and looking into maybe to first see if the same impression is shared among others too, and see where this conversation could go from there.

3
  • 2
    I like the standard "for education purposes" better than the standard "for information purposes". It adds more rigorous demands those posting answers. Which makes the information, which results from such a standard, more accurate.
    – grovkin
    Jun 30 at 15:23
  • But, as I argued in one of the exchanges on this topic before, I also think it's important that the casual users of the site be reminded that the legal profession is inherently adversarial by design. So a hypothetical question about one's divorce could be answered by the lawyers of the divorcing spouse. And rather than lack of attorney-client privilege, there should be emphasis on lack of representation by those posting answers.
    – grovkin
    Jun 30 at 15:33
8

Can we have something this strong when someone visits?

The disclaimer on Medical Sciences SE is not stronger than the one on Law SE. It is just redundant and more tiresome to read than a short, concise disclaimer. Really only the third paragraph is useful.

The first paragraph establishes twice the SE's non-endorsement of contributors or their views and content. Likewise, the notion of "not a substitute for medical advice" is on the first and third paragraphs.

Medical Sciences SE's explicit non-endorsement of content and contributors obviates the need for additionally mentioning "Stack Exchange Inc., and its [other] sites" (brackets added). It would be unreasonable to pretend that SE sites not specializing in the subject matter would endorse something about it despite Medical Science SE's explicit non-endorsement.

The mention that content is "provided by individual community members" is obvious. In fact, the lower right of every question, answer, and comment reflects which individual user posted it. Thus, there are no grounds for assuming that those are jointly posted. And given aforementioned non-endorsement, "clarifying" that those members "are not posting on behalf of Stack Exchange Inc." renders the disclaimer more redundant: Stating that an entity does not endorse content implies that the content was not posted on behalf of that entity.

Another obvious fact is that "This is a public Site and all posts on this Site can be seen by anyone and may be shared freely with others". The reminder is pointless and adds no robustness to a disclaimer.

1
  • 1
    On top of that, the persistent capitalization of "site" is both tiresome and redolent of empty self-importance.
    – phoog
    Jul 9 at 21:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .