I am preparing a disclaimer to be added to the bottom of my posts here. The problem I am trying to solve -at least in part- is that the colleagues in the scientific collaborations I work for apparently fear that I be identified, by science reporters or other media agents, as an official source of information from those experiments.

To understand the problem you should know a few things about the way scientific collaborations allow the distribution and discussion of their results. In order to be able to represent a large collaboration at a scientific conference your talk slides, as well as your speech, are very carefully checked in advance by your peers. The collaboration speaks with a single voice to allow no confusion in the exact meaning of the results they have produced.

In print, things are no different: articles sent to scientific magazines have to withstand a painstaking internal review process, which may last months, and during which every collaborator has the right to request changes to the text. It is not rare to see a scientific result withheld from publication for a long time, while the authors are requested deeper checks and studies. A similar but much lighter procedure is enforced for the short papers called "proceedings", which collaborators write after presenting results at a conference.

So how about blogs ? Blogs should be recognized as a personal expression of the author, but it is easy for information processing professionals to "forget" or "overlook" that simple fact. This may produce unwanted results in certain occasions.

I have to acknowledge that, given the recent outcome of my post on unsupported rumors here, a minimum amout of protection is needed: something like a disclaimer might be the right solution. It looks right because I have read in the press my name associated with declarations that I am "not a reliable source of information", "not affiliated in any way with experiment xxx", "not an official source", etcetera. If these things need to be stressed, then there indeed is a problem to solve. Whether I am reliable or not is just an opinion, but whether I am speaking my mind or representing a collaboration should be made as clear as possible.

Tentative Disclaimers

So here is a list of possible disclaimers, from serious to non-serious ones. Up for debate which one I should pick. I hope for your valuable input!

The first try is quite minimalistic, but might well do the job:

"The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not reflect in any way those of the scientific collaborations of which he is a member."

A second version includes my employer (which, I should stress, has never ever given me a hint of dissatisfaction with my blog, just maybe a few humoristic remarks on Lisa Randall by F.F. at a "group I" meeting):

"The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and they do not reflect in any way those of the institutions to which he is affiliated. These include the CDF and CMS collaborations, as well as the Italian Institute of Nuclear Physics."

Or maybe I should be more explicit:

"To science reporters, media agents, and other information recyclers: please understand and do not overlook that the opinions reported in this article are my private ones. I am in no way speaking on behalf of the institutions to which I am affiliated. For more information dial 1-800-GET-REAL."

Finally, how about this version:

"The author of this article wishes to point out, in case it was not already embarassingly, ridiculously obvious, that the opinions he expresses above are his own, and they do not represent in any way those of his various affiliations, which include the CDF and CMS experiments, the INFN, the Italian Union of Astrophilists, the Brights, and the Italian Club di Topolino."

I anxiously await your own suggestion, or a vote to one of the above versions.