报刊杂志的警告标语

TOM SCOTT notes that "the media carefully warn about and label any content that involves sex, violence or strong language — but there"s no similar labelling system for, say, sloppy journalism and other questionable content." He supplies some rather useful cautionary flags, like "Warning: to ensure future interviews with the subject, important questions were not asked."  Mark Liberman says scientific papers should come with similar labels, like
WARNING: This article contains conclusions about human subgroups drawn from small differences between small and unrepresentative samples. The observed differences are not not likely to be characteristic of individual members of those subgroups in the general population. More representative samples may not even replicate these findings as small differences in group means.

汤姆.斯科特注意到但凡内容涉及性、暴力或者强硬措辞的报道都会被媒体贴上警告的标签。但是对于像劣质新闻和其他可疑内容却没有相似的标签机制。他提到一些很有用的警示标志，比如“警告：为了确保后续采访，重要的问题没有被问及。”马克.利博曼提出科学论文应该有类似这样的标志 “警告，本文涵盖的关于人类子群的研究结论来自不具代表性的样本间微小差别。观察到差别可能不代表普通人群里子群中个体成员的特征。即使再多的代表性样本，也不能复制由人类子群中的小差别得出的重要结论。

I"d combine Mr Scott"s and Mr Liberman"s concerns and offer this omnibus warning to consumers of journalism about language:

我结合了斯科特和利伯曼的关注点，把这个综合的对语言的警示献给新闻报道的读者们。

WARNING: The journalist writing this article, though adept with language, does not know nearly as much as he thinks he does about language, and does not know that he does not know this. He will pass on and over-interpret, with no critical faculties brought to bear whatsoever, the findings simplified in a press release about some recent linguistic research, simply because the press release has a university"s name at the top. For best results, skip the article and the press release and go to the original research.

警告：尽管写文章的记者是驾驭语言的老手，但是对于语言，他真正了解的往往没有他想象中了解得多。其他没有意识到他不知道一点。他继续传递并过分解读在新闻稿中精简的关于新近语言学研究的发现，而不进行任何批判性思考，紧紧因为该新闻稿顶端有某一大学的署名。要得到最佳的效果，就必须忽略这篇文章和报道，继续原来的研究。

Also, blog posts should probably come with       

同样，博客或许也该贴出：

WARNING:  Written in minutes and fact-checked in seconds via Google. May contain unsafe levels of self-righteousness. Past cleverness is no guarantee of future results.

警告：几分钟通过“谷歌”来素材，几秒钟对事实检验完毕，也许有些太自以为是。过去的聪明才智不是未来成果的保证。

But that would get rather repetitive.

但那些又太絮叨。更多信息请访问：http://www.24en.com/

What other cautionary labels would be useful?

到底怎么才能是有用的警示标志呢？