I like your examples, but Wikipedia's in even worse shape. Even if they could argue that their lil' old disclaimer is the legal equivalent of click wrap--hell, even if they actually required users to press "ok" to see an article--damage is done to third parties who may have not even seen the site and their wishful disclaimer for everything.
Of course, Congress preemptively solved this problem with sec 230, but it doesn't change the ethics. Harming real live human beings for the sake of encouraging scads of uneven and poorly reviewed BLPs is wrong, no matter what the disclaimer or Congress says.
|