Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Archives
Straw poll 2002 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – August 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 - February 2007 February 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - May 2007 May 2007

Re-revised wording

None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines can ever account for all possibilities. If a scenario occurs where the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is acceptable to ignore them and use your best judgment.

What this says about the rules

• Rules derive their power to compel from historical consensus. They are not set in stone, but are rather a reflection of the shared opinion of a great many editors.
• Rules are sometimes poor attempts to put complex thoughts into words. The wording of a rule is never important; rather, the spirit of a rule is what counts.
• Rules are never final, as they are derived from consensus, and consensus can change.
• Rules tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. Follow consensus, not policy.
• Rules should be subject to constant scrutiny. When consulting the rules, consider not only what the rule says, but whether it is a valid rule to begin with.
• Rules cannot be lawyered with. There are no "loopholes" or "technicalities", as the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.
• Rules should still be followed most of the time in most situations.

What this means for editors

• Over time, familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them. Read the talk pages about the rules: they often shed light on ideas in the rules that are contentious.
• Feel free to break the rules if you need to.
• Anytime you break the rules, explain to your fellow editors why doing so improves the encyclopedia.
• At the same time, listen to your fellow editors: if many people disagree with your actions, consider reverting them.
• You are still responsible for reasonably forseeable effects of your actions.
• Consider all issues on a case-by-case-basis.
• Participation in Wikipedia is not contingent upon knowledge of any rules. If someone unknowingly breaks a rule, politely point her to the appropriate rule pages, but still consider that her judgment may be correct.

Discussion of the above

I edited a bit of the above, and moved the old version (and its discussion) to the archive. I tried to take into account the opinions of people who feel that IAR should have no exceptions (though I would still argue that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should never be ignored for any reason.) Nonetheless, I think we need consensus if we're going to revise the wording, and the current wording clearly does not enjoy consensus. - Chardish 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, looks pretty good to me. >Radiant< 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is the first time we've ever agreed on something. I'm delighted. :D - Chardish 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to admit it's quite an impressive synthesis. Kudos; would not object to giving this a try. -- Visviva 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've had a go at revising the intro. I'm not convinced we really need more than that, and I'm not exactly in agreement with some of the extra points, like having to follow the rules most of the time and reading rule talk pages and such. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I edited the wording again slightly, and did so in a way that incorporates the "classic" wording of the current version. Abu-Fool's version can be found here [1]. - Chardish 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And your old one was here. In fact, you've pretty much returned it to the "classic" version. Now you begin to understand :-) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, I think this wording is a good mix between the original wording, my wording, and your wording. But that's not really what we should be discussing here. - Chardish 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it's gone a few days with no negative comments and no objections, I'm going to go ahead and put the revised wording up as the current policy. - Chardish 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nice work. — Deckiller 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've fleshed it out...

It makes the spoken version of this article grossly out of date. We need to record a new version! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules and Guidelines

Strictly per definition, a rule is something that permits no deviation, while a guideline does. One of the things that ignore all rules does is stress that you may deviate from any written statement, so strictly speaking everything written in the project namespace is a guideline (and you could see IAR as merely reaffirming this fact). --Kim Bruning 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Ignore all rules" is one of the oldest policies on the project. Assuming we want to preserve the name "Ignore all rules", which I think we should (for tradition's sake), it makes sense for the policy to discuss rules, not guidelines. Splitting hairs about 'guidelines' is not only Wikilawyering (which IAR makes impossible), but it also makes the policy confusing to newcomers (as they may assume IAR applies only to guidelines, and not to policy.) - Chardish 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. At the end of the day there's a yawning chasm between a guideline, which is a voluntary process you may follow, and a rule, which something where non-compliance leads to punishment. Statements like Consensus Can Change and Ignore All Rules in different ways stress that the english wikipedia only really uses guidelines.

There are community-dynamics reasons why hard rules are Not A Good Idea on wikipedia.

At the end of the day, declaring IAR to be policy is what is meant to drive that point home hard with a clue by four... and yet now this page states that there are rules to follow. (Though I can see that the intent is good. )

So how do you suggest we stress that every page in the project namespace is about guidelines (as per the dictionary definition)? --Kim Bruning 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I've been told off for using Jargon too (see the whole "vote" vs "poll" debate), so I don't think others should be exempt. :-)

Wikipedia has rules; they are not, as you described, "hard rules." Nonetheless, that does not make them any less actionable, and if someone wants to ignore them, they had better have a very good reason for doing so, one that is backed by consensus. What you are suggesting would reduce the page to "Wikipedia's rules are all just suggestions;" they are not. - Chardish 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"They had better have a good reason" you say. So what happens if someone does something that is not mentioned in the guidelines? --Kim Bruning 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Hmm, googling for a thesaurus, I do see a synonymous relationship with one definition of rule: "a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior"; but I find no such relationship with suggestion.

You use common sense when dealing with it. - Chardish 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I certainly don't disagree in the general case of course :-). However, as a response, doesn't that get pretty close to some sort of circular argument? (see:Wikipedia_talk:Use_common_sense#About_this_page for why). <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: Pages labelled policy are thought to be more essential to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", which is part of IAR and required for it. That does not mean that everything in the policies is necessarily essential for "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" or that one must follow policies to the letter in order to be following IAR. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

While some of the points added to the page are rather innocuous and simply helpful, and other changes merely add unnecessary complexity, there are some specific changes to this page that serve to add rules to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, specifically:

• By stating that readers should "familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them", as though the purpose of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was to require people to know "the rules" rather than to allow people to focus on creating an encyclopedia instead of learning the minutiae of the rule cathedral (don't forget to "Read the talk pages about the rules" too!).
• By referencing Wikipedia:Consensus above all the elements more essential to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or the fact that supposed "consensus" is not all-dominant force that can magically convert Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a sports betting parlour--which should not all be added.
• By stating that the mere reason for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines cannot account for all possibilities" as though IAR is only about some special cases where the rule writers did not think if a particular contingency (don't forget to read all the rules so you know if the rule writers missed this contingency!)

See revision. Also, rather than reverting on a point of procedure, you should actually justify what you think is correct about these lines. The previous version, the long-standing consensus version, remains by default when there are such errors in the new version of which you refuse all correction. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the longstanding aversion to instruction creep on this page is not without merit, and several other of the points newly added duplicate each other and are unnecessarily verbose. Others simply need to be reformed to be more accurate. Also, some of the proposal seems to have been created under the assumption that IAR is "Disregard all rules" rather than "Ignore". —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reading rule talk pages is getting really silly. If people want to cite something to tell others that they are "misunderstanding" IAR and not ignoring rules "properly", they can use WP:WIARM or WP:IAUIAR. I see no reason to give official blessing to any of this. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more like it. It's short and contains no jargon or complex conditions. I hope it's not too much that I've added on the this to it, which completes the "trifecta". I don't see a need for much more than that. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your addition was good and that this is a reasonable version. Haukur 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I think the reason people have so many different and wildly varying ideas about what IAR means and what its purpose is is because the policy has been too vague and arcane - it is an apparent paradox; and you cannot introduce a paradox into the official policy of anything and expect people to walk away with the same interpretations of what it means. I believe that this is the major obstacle towards transforming IAR into a policy that people can understand, without contemplation, analysis, or, worst of all, eisegesis. In reference to Centrx's three main points:

1. IAR was never meant to be a substitute for the rules, or there would be no rules. Unfamiliarity with the rules in the short term is understandable, but in the long term is barely defensible. That is why the longer version said that familiarity with the rules should be achieved over time.
2. Consensus is the basis for all rules on Wikipedia - it does not govern the behavior of individual editors, though. The point of the references to consensus was mainly to state that Wikipedia has no constitution. I don't see how it could be derived from that wording that Wikipedia is a "sports-betting parlour" - consensus is what determines the rules. NPOV is policy because it enjoys consensus.
3. This last point has validity, though I believe that is one large reason why IAR does exist - to prevent lawyering by referring only to existing rules.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that, based on the straw poll available in this page's archives, it's fairly clear that the then-current wording, which is very similar to the wording that now appears, does not enjoy consensus (nearly half of the editors involved opposed it.) I am done reverting, and I look forward to the continuing discussion on revising the policy. : ) - Chardish 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. IAR is not a "substitute" for the rules; it characterizes the rules and their low importance in relation to the actual business of creating an encyclopedia. All of the basic policies are common sense for any intelligent person who knows what an encyclopedia is. Most editors do not read these policies, many editors do not even know they exist, and that is quite alright; reading "the rules" is not necessary to be a productive editor of Wikipedia.
2. NPOV is actually a Foundation issue, so no, "consensus" does not trump it. In general, consensus cannot change Wikipedia into a not-encyclopedia. If some people want to make something that is not an encyclopedia, such as a sports-betting site, separate projects/new websites are created. Consensus is meaningless if there is not some reasoned basis on which to make a decision. Anyway, if you want to disagree, your position is irrelevant to IAR.

—Centrx→talk • 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording is disputed?

You generally know that the wording of something is disputed if there has just been a recent edit. Isn't the tag a bit redundant? --Kim Bruning 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Silence equals consent." This discussion could go on for quite a while, and it's good to let people know that it is going on, even if no changes are being made to the page. - Chardish 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new way that introduces it just slightly, as it kind of touches on what the real intent behind the anti-policy is - that we are not all-knowing and all-seeing, and that as such, the rules can't cover everything. I also like that it encourages people to use their best judgement. That puts a little assumption of good faith into the policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why a scuffle over wording, rather than the substance of the policy, requires a tag. -- Visviva 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More clutter

Removed it. Again. Too fat. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this change reflect any sort of consensus established on this page? - Chardish 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The page has been like this for a long time; that is a lot of consensus. It has also been discussed at length on the talk page. Consensus does not magically disappear when a proposed version has a few days with a handful of me-too supports. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I didn't even realize that the above was a proposal to replace the actual policy's wording. (I thought that it was to be a separate page.) —David Levy 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

a lot of consensus Hardly. The edit by Jimbo intimidated people for a while and a few guardians of this page have reverted most changes but that doesn't mean there's consensus for this version. Haukur 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Chardish 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be more precise to say that this is the version which the greatest number of editors can live with. In practice on the wiki, that is generally what consensus means; not something everyone is happy with, but something a working supermajority are willing to accept. I think we have an essay about that somewhere...

There have been several recent attempts to change and enhance the page, with different groups involved each time; but it is significant that the page keeps coming back to something much like the present version. For my part, I think this recurrent BRD cycle is constructive in itself, even if it never actually adds so much as a comma to the "default" version of the page. -- Visviva 11:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, since you keep on stating that the short version has consensus, I am interested in hearing your opinion on my point that this page does not enjoy consensus due to clearly divided opinions in a recent straw poll. I'm restoring the "disputed" tag, since there are clearly a number of people who like other versions. - Chardish 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to your actual arguments above. Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by polling; you need to justify with reasons (not to mention most of the people who oppose IAR would also oppose your reformulation of it). —Centrx→talk • 05:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in effect, you're saying "The page holds consensus even though 40% of people don't like it." Rubbish. Polling is not a way to make decisions, but it is a valid way to determine the opinions of editors. - Chardish 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

A poll says nothing about the opinions of the people who do not put their name to it, and it says nothing about whether the people who vote for or against a policy actually understand it. A poll gives equal weight to Jimbo Wales as to a banned user. A poll gives equal weight to someone who has given deep thought to the issue and has written encyclopedia articles and policies for years as it does to someone who has semi-automatically reverted vandals a little for the past month who upon discovering IAR yesterday submitted an instinctive reaction and never looked back. You might try filtering out all the voters who have less than 100 edits outside their user-space, and then compelling a statistically significant number of other Wikipedia editors to voice their opinion on the issue, but that still would not ensure an informed opinion and would be a waste of time when the more efficient course of action is to have a reasoned discussion. —Centrx→talk • 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't care—fat or skinny, doesn't matter to me. She's a beauty either way. — Deckiller 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that any change to the wording of this policy is unlikely to prevail for long unless there is a very broad agreement to it. --TONY SIDAWAY 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that this rule is pretty much solid? Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry if I was unclear. What I actually meant to say was "any change to the wording of this policy is unlikely to prevail for long unless there is a very broad agreement to it." --TONY SIDAWAY 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not at all shocked to find the extra sentence shot down, though I was expecting almost the opposite reason. To find myself on the "fat" end of the cruft spectrum is a bit of a surprise. Ah well. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like that's just a misunderstanding of the policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice fonts. Say, what's gotten into you today, anyway? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just beginning to understand IAR, I suppose. Kim's been right all along. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, everyone behave eh? :-). Hmmm, so are there any creative ways to edit that won't get reverted today? --Kim Bruning 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is the new black. Speaking of which, I still like your black box the best... why not make the page pretty? So many Philistines in this talk page. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely love that new signature. --Deskana (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty rad, right? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Where's Kibo's signature when you need it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, IAR is by far the best policy we have on Wikipedia. No question! Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, anyway, what are we discussing here? - Chardish 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember. Who cares? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I care. I think this policy needs clarifying, others (including yourself) seem to agree with me, and all we've managed to do since updating the page to reflect our changes is get a small group ...a cabal, maybe?... ; ) of hyper-protective editors to unquestioningly revert anything we try to do. Surely there's somewhere we need to go from here. - Chardish 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see changes to the policy. That said, considering that your version was by far the best wording we've had for IAR, and seeing what happened in the past few days (we're back to the old version? SURPRISE!), it's beginning to seem pointless. Too many bureaucrats here not wanting change. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents

I think that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" is the best version of all versions ever proposed. I would be very surprised if anyone could come up with a better version, and I don't think it should be changed without lengthy discussion. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Why? The point of IAR is that you don't have to go through those lengthy discussions. IAR cuts the red tape and kills the mindless bureaucracy. We're not the government here. Saying IAR can't change without lengthy discussion is pretty much equivalent to saying the spirit of IAR is dead. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you regard long-term discussion of a controversial content issue as "red tape" and "mindless bureaucracy." WP:IAR is useful to new editors (who don't fully understand the rules), but when someone does understand a rule, the application of WP:IAR usually should be largely uncontroversial. It is not a license to bypass our normal consensus-based processes whenever one feels like it; doing so doesn't improve or maintain the project. —David Levy 07:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A sensible view. Why don't we put it into the text of the page so people don't get it wrong? (I'll tell you why, it's because there is no general agreement that this is what IAR means - it is all things to all people.) Haukur 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Among people who support the policy's existence, most would agree with what I wrote above. The policy remains succinct because attempts to "clarify" it invariably inject the very sort of bureaucracy (and unintended technicalities) that it's intended to alleviate. Such text—no matter how comprehensive—cannot possibly cover every situation, and that's one of the main reasons why the policy exists. —David Levy 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Among people who support the policy's existence, most would agree with what I wrote above. I doubt that. And "people who support the policy's existence" is not a well-defined set. I, for example, support some versions of what this page has said and not others. Haukur 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that most of the policy's supporters agree with the current wording and oppose revision. I'm saying that most would agree that the policy isn't a license to controversially bypass consensus whenever one feels like doing so. —David Levy 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that statement is bland enough that most everyone will agree with it. If you spiced it up a bit by changing "whenever one feels like doing so" to "whenever it is necessary for the good of the encyclopedia" you would get disagreement. But in any case that wasn't the part I thought would be controversial. You also said that IAR was useful for new editors who don't understand the rules, this is a view I agree with but not everyone does - some feel that IAR is only for editors who do understand the rules. You also said: "when someone does understand a rule, the application of WP:IAR usually should be largely uncontroversial." Even though you've made the statement fairly bland by including 'usually' and 'largely' I still think you can find people who would disagree with this. The fact is that every attempt to include a caveat in IAR that you still have to work with other people, get along, respect consensus or anything like that have been reverted. Haukur 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Ummm...yeah, if one "spiced up" my statement to convey something other than what I wrote, it might no longer be accurate.

2. I'm quite certain that most editors disagree with the notion that a new user must learn every rule before editing. This is a wiki, so mistakes can be corrected.

3. See above for the reason why attempts to expand the wording are reverted. —David Levy 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that attempts to expand the wording are reverted because they introduce loopholes ("unintended techinicalities"), ignoring that the text as it stands has a huge loophole in implying that you should do whatever you think is right regardless of what anyone else thinks. Haukur 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with that assessment. —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What unintended technicalities were introduced by the addition of: "Use your best judgment, treat your fellow contributors with respect, and focus on building the encyclopedia."? None at all and it still left the text in one line on my screen. Why is it impossible to get supporters of the current wording to accept such a harmless addition which would make several of us a lot happier? Haukur 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"It says 'focus on building the encyclopedia,' so the policy doesn't apply to talk pages or project pages!" —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. But I figure, the first sentence has the same problem, so at least we weren't making matters worse this way. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By "the first sentence," are you referring to "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."? —David Levy 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. Admittedly, the fact that I didn't see much difference between "building the encyclopedia" and "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" might be my attitude problem, and would not necessarily be shared by others. I think it would sound awkward, but we could repeat "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" if it came to it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely citing an example (off the top of my head) of the type of wiki-lawyering (in this case, the unintended distinction between the entire Wikipedia website and the encyclopedia proper) that we risk enabling. —David Levy 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is that which is a significant factor in my opposition to just about everything people have tried to do with this. What now reads "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" invites a certain amount of weaseling already, and itself went through a few minor tweaks. I know, because one of my own anonymous adjustments still persists. But it is mostly harmless in that regard, and I think this one is as well, and is one of the few things I can get behind. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop using "the spirit of the rule" as an argument. If there's a spirit of the rule, the text should support it. Speaking of new editors, how can someone expect a new editor to understand Wikipedia or its policies if the rules say one thing but have a different "spirit"? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I don't think I'm invoking the spirit of anything. Aren't you the one saying if we don't modify IAR, the spirit of IAR is dead and the terrorists have won and all that? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I indented wrong; I was responding to David. I think IAR is terrorism... cool! I just made my own day.

Hmmm... You know, I'd like to see some changes... maybe we should just remove all text from the project page, but keep the policy box. If people favor simplicity for this policy, isn't that solution the most simple of them all? As it stands, the text is just a reiteration of the title... Hmmm... I don't like redundancy... let's see what we can do. Let the spirit prevail! Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe we should just rid ourselves of all policies, including this one. Spirit spirit spirit! Have we forgotten? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad Jimbo is not a transcendent demigod. That would make life so much cooler (and editing so much easier). Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I said nothing about looking past the page's text to find a hidden meaning. I believe that the current wording perfectly conveys the policy's spirit.

2. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. —David Levy 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact your statement now that "WP:IAR is useful to new editors (who don't fully understand the rules)" pretty much contradicts what you told me last year: "Your perception of this page does not match that of the community ... it's not advice for newbies to not worry about learning the rules" Haukur 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting me out of context. I was addressing your attempt to change the policy's wording to "If the rules make you nervous and depressed and not desirous of improving Wikipedia, then ignore them as you contribute to the encyclopedia." There's nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia before one understands the rules, but there is no consensus that new users should be encouraged to not bother learning them. Quoting myself, your wording (based on Sanger's original text) conveys "that it's okay for users to ignore the rules simply because they're inconvenient (id est, because they don't feel like following the rules)," and it explicitly excludes instances in which users make informed decisions to ignore rules that shouldn't be applied to specific situations. —David Levy 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no consensus that new users should be encouraged to not bother learning them Of course not, I never said so. The point of IAR was (and should be) to encourage newbies to dive right in and start working; they'll pick things up as they go along. Somewhere along the way it got changed to this boring and unnecessary adage you are describing. I support the old version and oppose the new version, you support the new version and oppose the old version. There are also people who think that the old and new version mean the same thing. At least the two of us agree that this is not the case. Haukur 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree with your interpretation of the policy's original meaning (which remains valid), but I believe that your preferred wording fails to properly convey it (and also omits another important meaning). That was the context in which I wrote the statement that you quoted. —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd respond up there, but there's too much going on. You said originally that IAR is useful to new editors. No, it's not in its current state. It's useful to experienced editors as is, but means nothing to new editors. At least that's what experience has taught us. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. A new editor's mistaken belief that he/she must learn every rule before contributing might prevent him/her from improving Wikipedia, so the current wording is entirely applicable. —David Levy 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No new editor thinks that he/she must learn every rule, and we don't need to kid ourselves by saying they do. When you begin editing Wikipedia, you don't know rules exist, as you are literally editing text. That's how Wikipedia was set up and how it bills itself -- anyone can edit. Our policies are back-end and become learned once an editor has been editing for at least a bit. Front-end/back-end is how Wikipedia operates. First someone edits the product, then they learn functional policies, then they learn meta-policies like IAR. To say that IAR is totally applicable to new editors would be, well, wrong. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, I spent a long time reading up on Wikipedia's rules before I felt comfortable editing. (I was afraid of messing up.) If I'd known about this policy (which I didn't find until later), I would have simply begun contributing immediately.

2. If, as you claim, new editors aren't even aware that meta-policies exist (which, in my case, was true of this policy), how would rewording it be of any benefit to them? —David Levy 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one way: If the current wording of WP:IAR wasn't so awful I would link to it in personal welcome template. On the other hand maybe I'm stuck back in 2003, maybe there really is no easy way to just start contributing now. I don't know. Things were a lot more lightweight back then. No categories. Fewer intimidating templates at the start of articles. Not a wall of scary (and near-pointless) "project" templates on every talk page. Haukur 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Planning of straw poll #2

I think we really need a second straw poll on this topic, given that the first one is nearing a year in age and a lot of discussion is being generated here. Here are some possible questions I think can be asked.

Please note that this is not the actual straw poll, but rather the beginning of plans to create a straw poll.

• Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Answer for each.)
  • Ignore all rules currently enjoys consensus.
  • This wording of IAR enjoys consensus: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them".
  • The "spirit of IAR" enjoys consensus.
• Which of the following best describes your current feelings towards the existence of IAR? Choose one.
  • IAR should exist, and the version above is adequate.
  • IAR should exist, but needs to be worded better in a form that is vague and open to individual interpretation.
  • IAR should exist, but needs to be worded better in a form that is explicit and subject to limited interpretation.
  • IAR should not exist in any form.
• How strong do you think IAR should be, in your ideal form of wording?
  • A foundation issue.
  • "Rule #1", superseding all other Wikipedia policy.
  • A policy.
  • A guideline.
  • A suggestion.
• Which of the following, if any, do you think are unacceptable rules to ignore under any circumstances? (Acceptable to ignore/unacceptable to ignore with each.)
  • Foundation issues (NPOV is included here)
  • Core content policies (verifiability, biographies of living persons, no original research
  • What Wikipedia is not
  • Behavior towards fellow editors (no personal attacks, assume good faith, civility)
• Which of the following, if any, do you see as the "spirit of IAR" or the "reason for IAR"? Agree with all that apply.
  • Consensus trumps policy.
  • Editors should use common sense.
  • Editors should not be required to learn the rules.
  • The rules cannot account for all scenarios.
  • With experience comes less reliance on policy.
  • The rules have no loopholes.
  • The rules cannot be lawyered with.
  • Administrators should have the ability to overturn consensus.
  • Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not rules.
  • Issues are to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • Rules are descriptive, not prescriptive.
  • The spirit of a rule, not its wording, is what is important.

Comments? - Chardish 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a straw poll will actually accomplish anything, or just cause arguments? (This is an honest question, not a trick question nor a question intended to cause arguments itself) --Deskana (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it will shed light on which ideas have consensus (or are near consensus) and which ones don't. We throw out the ones that don't, and work on formulating the ones that do into a workable document. If this cannot be accomplished then this page is little more than a community essay. - Chardish 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. We do not create/eliminate/reclassify policy via polling, nor is the community entitled to overrule Jimbo on this matter. (He deemed WP:IAR a policy, so that's what it is.) Straw polls can be useful tools, but much of the above is rather pointless. —David Levy 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We are perfectly entitled to overrule Jimbo, he has no formal power here any more. Haukur 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What in the world gave you that idea? —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, besides Office actions, Jimbo begs us to treat him like any other editor. There are a bunch of diffs that have shown that in the past. Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, it's a community. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is a member of the Board but he is one among many. He is not the chairman of the Board and he does not control a majority of the Board. The Board has passed no resolution giving him any particular authority over this project. He used to have such authority, of course, by virtue of basically owning the whole thing, but he doesn't anymore. Haukur 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He still has authority, if only because lots of people think he does. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Haukur 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Please cite a source for your claim that Jimbo no longer possesses such authority. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines indicates otherwise.

2. Jimbo was the Chair of the Board of Trustees when he deemed WP:IAR a policy. Has Florence Devouard issued a contrary proclamation since succeeding him, or are you under the impression that every executive decision ever made by Jimbo instantly expired in October? —David Levy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Please cite a source that I'm not a super-intelligent kangaroo. That policy page is simply out of date. 2. When Jimbo last edited this page there was nothing to indicate that he was making any sort of authoritative proclamation rather than simply offering his opinion. Haukur 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring #1 (because you subsequently provided a thoughtful response below), I must simply disagree with #2. Jimbo knew darn well that editing the page with the summary "IAR is policy, always has been" would be perceived as an official act. When expressing an opinion that could be misinterpreted as such, Jimbo is careful to note this fact. —David Levy 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, you deserved a more serious answer to the first question. The best place to start is probably Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia and the talk page of that page where Erik Möller explains the functioning of the WMF and addresses the issue of Jimbo's (lack of) authority at some length. I can dig up quotes from Jimbo too if you like. Haukur 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of which changes nothing, I'm afraid. If Jimbo said its policy, then enough people will agree with him (because he's Jimbo) that it will stay policy. Whether or not Jimbo has power de jure doesn't matter (he may or may not, I don't know); de facto Jimbo is the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedians are quite so reluctant to disagree with him. Haukur 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some aren't. Enough will always agree with him to make anything he says fact, at least for now. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While there is a great deal of discussion about Jimbo not unilaterally controlling the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't see any statement on the project page or its talk page that Jimbo no longer possesses the authority to create policy. To me, the statement that Jimbo's "influence is based on respect, not power" reflects the fact that people look to Jimbo for guidance because they respect him (not because they're required to consult him on every matter), and this has been the case for quite some time.

Yes, please quote statements from Jimbo indicating that he no longer possesses the authority to create policy. —David Levy 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This poll does not replace discussion; it supplements it. I think it's fair to say that peoples' personal feelings on this issue are acting as an obstacle to consensus, and, due to the revert-happy crowd, that our only options are indefinite quibbling or allow the page to remain as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

I have nothing against straw polls, but they are non-binding. We do not enact/repeal policies via majority voting. Thus, some of the above questions are useless. —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the questions deal with matters of opinion - they ask "what do you believe?" and "what do you think?" The one question that doesn't is asking if you agree that IAR has consensus or not. I bring this up because it seems like many people believe that IAR does have consensus, even though the previous poll seems to indicate that it doesn't. - Chardish 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't determine consensus via majority voting. You're actually attempting to go a step further by asking people to vote on whether they believe that other people support WP:IAR.

And again, this is moot; the community cannot eliminate or "demote" the policy. —David Levy 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make it clear that I am well aware this is non-binding. It is an attempt to establish an idea of what direction to take the consensus building. It is a tool to help us better understand what we want as a community. And yes, the community can "demote" or eliminate policy. There is nothing sacrosanct about IAR. - Chardish 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm troubled by your statement that the previous poll appeared to indicate a lack of consensus. Again, we don't determine such consensus via polling.

2. A non-binding straw poll can supplement a discussion, but it isn't helpful to ask people to vote on whether or not there is consensus for a policy.

3. I meant that the community cannot eliminate or "demote" this policy. Consensus would not override Jimbo's decision. —David Levy 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that consensus is not determined by polling, but polling can evaluate whether there is a consensus on a particular point or not. See point #9 at this guideline. Also, if there is no consensus that there is consensus on the article, how can there possibly be consensus on the article? (I apologize if the wording on that sentence was awkward.) We'll continue the discussion about Jimbo below. - Chardish 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, straw polls can be used to gauge consensus. This is not, however, done by voting on whether or not consensus exists.

2. We determine consensus directly, not by asking people whether there's consensus that there's consensus (or consensus that there's consensus that there's consensus, et cetera).

3. Again, this policy cannot be repealed via community consensus. —David Levy 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with having a discussion/poll here is that the issue of "does IAR mean this" is readily conflated with "should the IAR policy page be rewritten to state this explicitly"... I think a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, publicized as needed, might be more productive. If aspects of that essay were found to enjoy very broad consensus and support, we could then examine how best to integrate them here. -- Visviva 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with simply linking to the page? —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I'm aware of; nor is there anything wrong with dynamic experimentation, even if it always leaves us back where we started. -- Visviva 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. —David Levy 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many people are too hard-hearted about this page, unfortunately, for the wiki process to work by simply letting people edit the page a little bit at a time. There is a sizable number who simply wants to revert to the version as currently shown. - Chardish 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's role

I'm starting a new section because the one above had become too cluttered and indented. David says that Jimbo has been careful to note when he's acting as a regular member of the community and when he's not. I have to disagree with that, I think Jimbo often hasn't made it clear - perhaps not even to himself - what hat he's wearing at any given time. I think the living people category affair was a good example, I can maybe dig up the quotes but it would take time and maybe it's not needed.

David asks for quotes from Jimbo himself about less Jimbo power. Here's one: "I also liken my role to the British monarchy. My desire is that over time my power and role in the community becomes less and less and less so eventually I'll go out and shake hands with bomb victims and be on the news and say some helpful things but my actual power should be taken by the community, by the institutions we're building." This is from a talk he gave in 2005 (at Oxford, around minute 40) and what he's describing there has basically come to pass. We now have a community majority in the board, a community elected person as a chairman and Jimbo happily travelling around the world shaking hands. Haukur 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...but are any of them bomb victims? That's the most important thing.
I'm just being silly because this whole thing is being taken entirely too seriously. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't have any diffs handy, but I've seen many instances in which Jimbo has explicitly noted that he's commenting as an ordinary editor.

2. What I'd be interested to see is a statement by Jimbo that he no longer possesses the authority to create policy. —David Levy 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course he can still create policy just like you and I can make suggestions and if they are good and enough people agree they can become policy. And suggestions made by Jimbo will, of course, have a head start in getting attention compared to suggestions made by me or you. But Jimbo's suggestions still have to gain the consent of the community to become policy. In fact, the last time he tried to create a policy it got nowhere fast, see User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. If you want explicit confirmation that he can't, on his own, mandate a policy whether the community likes it or not I suggest we just ask him. Haukur 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The answer will have no bearing on this policy, but it is something that we ought to know. —David Levy 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's real power lies in his ability to sway community opinion. This is partly because he's Jimbo, and partly because his vision of Wikipedia is one that many of us find remarkably coherent and persuasive. With regard to this page, I believe his intervention took place in the middle of an edit war over whether IAR was policy or not controversy over the proper status of IAR. There already were a number of editors supporting this idea, and Jimbo's intervention was sufficient to raise their proportion to a working consensus. Jimbo didn't create this policy, but simply helped to resolve a dispute over its status. Leastwise that's how I see it. -- Visviva 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... there was certainly a lot happening here in the summer of 2006. Looking over the edit history leaves me still somewhat puzzled as to what was actually going on. I'm sure someone can clear things up, though. -- Visviva 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently asked Jimbo about his role at Wikipedia. His response:

I have often compared my community role to that of constitutional monarch, and specifically to the role of the Queen of England. This is itself just a poor metaphor to explain my desire that my actual role diminish over time to become mostly symbolic. I just want to wave at parades and cut ribbons at ceremonies. :) But for now I actually do still have some work to do. I can only govern here to a slight degree, and only then with the "consent of the government", which mostly means through the support of the most thoughtful and powerful admins.

I strongly disagree with his reference to "powerful admins" (whatever happened to administrators being "just regular users with a mop and bucket?") Nonetheless, full discussion here. - Chardish 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - he was doing really well up until he said "consent of the government" and "powerful admins". That's where I start to disagree. I am an admin - we aren't the government. We're like the guy who has the keys to the cabinet where the mop is located, and others must ask for them to use that key. Otherwise, yeah, I do more regular editing than admin stuff. Rollback was no big shake, since I'd been doing it via TWINKLE for a long time prior. In fact, I still use TWINKLE rather than the WP rollback function. If Jimbo had said "consent of the governed" and stopped there, I would have been happy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is he meant to say "consent of the governed". Whoever heard of "consent of the government"? But even with that weird (cute?) wording the message is still clear - he can't establish new policy on his own. Are you satisfied on that point, David? Haukur 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it isn't clear to me that this is what he meant (though I can see how someone would arrive at such a conclusion). A straightforward statement would convince me, of course. That, however, would not mean that he has "no formal power" here (which doesn't accurately describe any member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees). It would mean that he has significantly less power than he did before (though it wouldn't affect his executive decisions made prior to 21 October 2006). —David Levy 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still not satisfied that "declarations from Jimbo Wales" are insufficient to make policy? Could you give an example of a statement that would be straightforward enough to convince you of this? You're right that any member of the Board has power here in some sense but since it is a Board but not, at least in theory, an executive, it has to act as a body to order anything done. It's like with the branches of government. Robert M. Gates can order stuff done. Ron Paul not so much. Congress as a body, certainly.

There is no indication that Jimbo's edit to IAR was an executive decision and no reason for us to think it was. I could go into more detail on this but I'm growing puzzled with your continued insistence on this point. Do you feel the text of the page is so hard for you to defend on its merits that the only way to ensure it sticks is to frame it as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Anyway, even if Jimbo's edit was somehow a mandate we had to follow it would still be no means preclude a return to the version I prefer. If IAR has always been policy then surely the original text of the policy is still valid. Haukur 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. A straightforward enough statement by Jimbo would be something along the lines of "I no longer possess the authority to unilaterally create Wikipedia policy" or a simple "yes"/"no" response to such a question.

2. I agree with your statement about the board members' inherent authority. I was addressing your previous claim that Jimbo has "no formal power" here.

3. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the page's current text. It seems obvious to me that Jimbo's edit was a formal declaration of policy, but it certainly didn't mandate any particular wording. The original policy is valid (but poorly written and incomplete, in my opinion). —David Levy 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Excellent, thank you. 2. Okay, we're in agreement. 3. We understand each other, then. We still disagree on the nature of that edit but continuing that line of argument probably wouldn't be very fruitful so I won't. At least now now. Haukur 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consent of the government" incidentally makes sense in the context of monarchy, rather than social contract theory, which may be waht you are thinking of. e.g. enacting formula. Now therefore Fearless Leader, on advise of and with consent of the Cabal and a Straw Poll, enacts as follows.... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IAR and my role

I still have the ability to make policy here or to veto policy changes. Could I do so against the overwhelming opposition of the community? No, I doubt it, but then, why would I try? What are the limits of my ability to make policy? No one knows, not even me, but if anyone wants to stir up a revolt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and established social institutions of Wikipedia, well, you'd best have a really good reason. And I'm basically not doing anything insane and tend to try to be ahead of the community in terms of giving up power before anyone ever tries to take it from me. :) So, I advise against open revolt, however interesting the theoretical question might be for all of us.

In terms of IAR, it is policy because it has always been policy, not just because of me saying so. It was one of our first rules, and I consider it foundational. We have a huge huge problem with people who do not get that rules-lawyering is bad, that basically being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia. So I think this policy is important and furthermore than it causes no problems... certainly it preserves a healthy space for bold action in cases where pretty much anyone can see what the right thing to do is, policy or no policy.

I would support a rewrite and rewording of sorts, so long as it doesn't attempt to change policy but rather attempts to be more explanatory. For example, I liked the old old version which said that if rules make you nervous and depressed, ignore them. Versions which suggest that the meaning is simply that the rules don't cover every possible situation don't seem to me to go far enough, since we also want to cover the situation where the rules are simply wrong.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)