Difference between revisions of "Template talk:Disclaimer"
imported>Aperfectring (→Responsibility: APR talking of responsibility? Really?) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
I think we need to add a more in-depth explanation of illegal trespass. In most countries trespass is not illegal if there is no intent to trepass (ie you are on private property without knowing it) and in others civilians have the right to access for private property. However, in Australia neither of these are the case. Trespassing is trespassing whether there was intent or not. If somebody walking along a track next to a private property walks into that property, whether signed or unsigned, fenced or unfenced, marked or unmarked can be brought to court on trespassing. This needs to be pointed out a tad more blatently for some people. It is ultra improtant that Australians do their research before hashing in areas that are not crown lands (some crown lands also require licences to enter) or public property. --[[User:Twistie|Twistie]] 4:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | I think we need to add a more in-depth explanation of illegal trespass. In most countries trespass is not illegal if there is no intent to trepass (ie you are on private property without knowing it) and in others civilians have the right to access for private property. However, in Australia neither of these are the case. Trespassing is trespassing whether there was intent or not. If somebody walking along a track next to a private property walks into that property, whether signed or unsigned, fenced or unfenced, marked or unmarked can be brought to court on trespassing. This needs to be pointed out a tad more blatently for some people. It is ultra improtant that Australians do their research before hashing in areas that are not crown lands (some crown lands also require licences to enter) or public property. --[[User:Twistie|Twistie]] 4:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Responsibility == | ||
| + | |||
| + | The advent of Calendar Girl pictures, some of which are NSFW, has sparked a discussion about responsibility for minors. Specifically, is "minors should be supervised on this wiki, and should ask permission before going out to meet with strange people" implicit in "You are expected to use proper judgment in all cases and are solely responsible for your own actions"? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Note, geohashing in itself has problems if we want to be completely safe in this regard. So this is not a high priority. Just wondering what other people think. Do we need to be more explicit in our disclaimers. | ||
| + | |||
| + | N.B. This is not in any way a criticism of the Calendar Girl pics. *wolf-whistle* ;) --[[User:Joannac|joannac]] 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | The Calendar Girl pics are awesome, but when we have stuff like this, we should make sure any links to them have some sort of warning. This isn't just for the kiddies, but for those of us with jobs that don't appreciate their employees looking at half (or more) naked geohashers. If we start to get some more widespread attention, then I think we should start to make disclaimers more explicit, like we did with the slashdot+San Fran thing. Until we start to get more attention, I think a more general disclaimer is more than appropriate. --[[User:Aperfectring|aperfectring]] 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 02:08, 10 June 2009
If someone approaches you and asks you to leave a geohash location (even if it is in a public place), please do not force the issue and comply forthwith.
I don't get this point. Should we yield to some thug an renounce our right of enjoying public spaces, just to not "force the issue"? --80.174.78.29 19:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry if I wasn't clear with what I meant. It's fixed now. --Tim P 19:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Trespassing
I think we need to add a more in-depth explanation of illegal trespass. In most countries trespass is not illegal if there is no intent to trepass (ie you are on private property without knowing it) and in others civilians have the right to access for private property. However, in Australia neither of these are the case. Trespassing is trespassing whether there was intent or not. If somebody walking along a track next to a private property walks into that property, whether signed or unsigned, fenced or unfenced, marked or unmarked can be brought to court on trespassing. This needs to be pointed out a tad more blatently for some people. It is ultra improtant that Australians do their research before hashing in areas that are not crown lands (some crown lands also require licences to enter) or public property. --Twistie 4:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Responsibility
The advent of Calendar Girl pictures, some of which are NSFW, has sparked a discussion about responsibility for minors. Specifically, is "minors should be supervised on this wiki, and should ask permission before going out to meet with strange people" implicit in "You are expected to use proper judgment in all cases and are solely responsible for your own actions"?
Note, geohashing in itself has problems if we want to be completely safe in this regard. So this is not a high priority. Just wondering what other people think. Do we need to be more explicit in our disclaimers.
N.B. This is not in any way a criticism of the Calendar Girl pics. *wolf-whistle* ;) --joannac 01:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
The Calendar Girl pics are awesome, but when we have stuff like this, we should make sure any links to them have some sort of warning. This isn't just for the kiddies, but for those of us with jobs that don't appreciate their employees looking at half (or more) naked geohashers. If we start to get some more widespread attention, then I think we should start to make disclaimers more explicit, like we did with the slashdot+San Fran thing. Until we start to get more attention, I think a more general disclaimer is more than appropriate. --aperfectring 02:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
