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 – June 2007 June – July 2007 July 2007 –

First Rule to Consider, but different interpretation today

If the claim is made that: "Ignore all rules was Wikipedia's first rule to consider" shouldn't it also be mentioned that the given interpretation "If any rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it." differs significantly from the original interpretation "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business." [1] supported by: Supporters of this rule include (at least) Larry Sanger, WojPob, Jimbo Wales, AyeSpy, OprgaG, Invictus, and Koyaanis Qatsi, Pinkunicorn, sjc, mike dill, Taw, GWO ?

1. If the rule has changed shouldn't that be noted?
2. If the rule hasn't changed, why is the text describing the rule being changed?

Uncle uncle uncle 05:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy's scope has only been expanded. The principle on which it originally was based—that users unfamiliar with the rules shouldn't allow this to intimidate them and prevent them from editing—remains. The wording, however, has been greatly improved (to avoid implying that people should ignore rules that they understand purely because they feel like it) and an additional anti-bureaucratic meaning has been incorporated. —David Levy 05:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The current wording is not an improvement. As one editor stated in an edit summary "this is not a job and you are not my co-worker". Garion96 (talk) 07:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a Wiki and Wikis require, by nature, collaboration. The "working with others" wording just reinforces a foundational principle that is not negotiable. If you don't like collaboration, find another project. There's no other way around it. This isn't anyone's job, but in a way, we are all co-workers. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, it however has nothing to do with ignore all rules. If I speedy delete something per IAR (all hypothetical, it hasn't happened yet). The rules are not preventing me to work with others. The rules prevent me to delete some crappy stuff which technically is not a speedy. Garion96 (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! The "working with others" wording is there to convey the fact that "ignoring the rules" doesn't mean "ignoring fellow editors." —David Levy 18:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to be a linguistic expert to read THAT from the rule.

"If any rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. This does not mean "automatically ignoring fellow editors"".

Still seems pointless (IMO) but much clearer. Garion96 (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That wording seems clumsy to me. The current wording is far more straightforward. If a rule prevents us from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, we should ignore it.

Is your objection is that we aren't always "working with others"? Whenever someone performs an action that benefits Wikipedia (such as the hypothetical speedy deletion), he/she is contributing to our shared goal of building an encyclopedia (id est working with others). —David Levy 18:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

One of my objections is that we are making a simple statement into something more complex. The collaborative goal of Wikipedia is a given. I think if we make it more complicated there is the potential to create more difficult situations. I also think it is not a clear sentence for non-native English speakers. How about "If a rule prevents you or other editors from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Garion96 (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My preferred wording is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe that collaboration is implied (or should be, at least) by "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." Others disagree, and the current wording seems like a reasonable compromise between my preference and theirs (a longer explanation). The wording that you suggest above doesn't convey the information in question. —David Levy 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Mine too, maybe we should start another revert war. :) Any way of improving the "with others" part to avoid people misreading it? I know I still do...sort of. Garion96 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would welcome better wording that conveys the same information. I just haven't seen it yet.  :-) —David Levy 22:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on why the one suggested above and/or below is no good.--Father Goose 04:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already commented on the wording suggested above (if you're referring to Garion96's). Regarding your suggested wording, I agree with Rockstar915; it uses more words to say less. It also seems a bit too informal to me. —David Levy 04:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, yes, I meant mine, not Garion96's. What "less" do you think it says? Is the "collaboration" element too far diluted?--Father Goose 04:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't personally believe that it should be necessary to reference collaboration, but yes, I'm not picking that up from your wording. I agree with Rockstar915 that it conveys essentially the same information conveyed by the pre-"working with others" version (which I believe did so more elegantly). —David Levy 04:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I do in fact ignore all rules, and purely because I feel like it. Apparently there's more to it though, because (ever since 2001) I've never actually been RFC-ed or RFAr-ed or anything like that (knock on wood). <scratches head>. So the interpretation in practice doesn't seem to have changed at all. What gives? --Kim Bruning 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But do you actually ignore the rules? Maybe new editors do simply due to ignorance, but I'm sure by now (after years of being involved) you know all of the rules at least nominally (not to mention you're active in many policy discussions), so there's got to be some subconscious acknowledgment of them going on when you edit. Plus, whenever you're ignoring the rules, you're probably still abiding by them anyway (obviously, since you've never been RFC-ed or RFAR-ed), and I'm sure you know (again, at least subconsciously) that you're abiding by them as you edit. So it begs the question: can we ever fully ignore the rules? ;-) Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone said something like "if you have to cite IAR, you are doing it wrong", which I sort of agree with. However, since we have quite a lot of policy wonks out there, I am not so sure anymore. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to an instance in which someone is familiar with a rule, understands it, realizes that there is no consensus to set it aside in a particular instance, and violates it purely because he/she wants to do something a certain way and doesn't care what others think. Citing this policy as justification for that is entirely inappropriate, and this is what the wording in question is supposed to discourage. —David Levy 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this work?

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

--Father Goose 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

How is this wording better? How does it convey the spirit of IAR more than the current wording? How is it different than the old version (despite the fact that it has more words)? Consensus has stated time and time again that a) less is more when it comes to this policy and b) the wording should not change unless there is a very convincing reason to do so. I personally think that IAR should convey three things: 1) We are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia. 2) Content is more important than policy. 3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that requires consensus to be sought. The current wording covers all of these points in very few words. Your version says nothing about collaboration and is wordy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It still says "we are here to build an encyclopedia" (possibly in a better way than the awkward "improve or maintain" language). It still conveys that content is more important than policy, and now includes a small explanation of why we have policy at all -- which gives a better baseline for why and when we ignore it. And it now mentions collaboration twice: "common standards" and "we use". It does not, however, state things in a way that might be read as "consensus must be sought at all times". Now, I think that such a literal reading of "working with others" is overblown, but others here do not, and I would like to work with those others to come up with a wording that satisfies them and me. This is preferable to yet more edit-warring and page protection.

The version I propose is also not wordy. It's slightly longer than the current one, but it also says more. The current one is so terse it doesn't do a good job of explaining the underlying principle. Why are we so insistent on preserving IAR as an enigma? The ideas behind it can be better explained, with not that many additional words.

As yet, I haven't seen any arguments as to why the proposed wording is wrong -- all I am seeing is hostility towards change, even when it is carefully and judiciously applied.--Father Goose 04:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to your last point: we don't need to prove that your wording is wrong. You need to prove (beyond a shadow of a doubt) that your wording is better. The hostility towards change in this policy occurs simply because being nitpicky about IAR's wording borders way too close on Wikilawyering.

See, the whole concept behind IAR is that the specific wording doesn't matter -- the spirit of Wikipedia is what matters the most. Because of this, if you want to change the policy, it's you who needs to prove why your wording is better. You should expect hostility because the spirit of this policy says "You don't need to change the wording. Just understand the policy and you'll be fine."

And so, in the end, the ball is in your court, not ours. And all I can see above in terms of reasons for change is "I don't like the idea of working with others" and "I don't like the wording." Ergo, it's no surprise to me that your proposal hasn't gained wild support. I personally don't see the need for change. Why? Because IAR is so much bigger and more important than getting into a scuffle about the wording. In fact, having nitpicky disputes about the wording is exactly what this policy is trying to prescribe against. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

And now for something completely different: I think the word you are looking for is 'proscribe' --69.124.51.62 00:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Understand the policy" -- that's exactly what I'm trying to address here. As I've said before, a common question on RfAs relates to whether the candidate understands IAR. IAR is enigmatic, but there's really no reason why it has to be enigmatic. I can understand wanting to avoid changing it to a wording that is wrong, but not to a wording that makes the policy more readily understood.

Three times you say the specific wording of IAR doesn't matter -- in defense of retaining the current wording. Yet you claim those who are willing to rethink it are the nitpickers. I put to you that the best wording is one that avoids warring and confusion. The current wording is not the best wording in that regard -- far from it. There is a heavy shadow of doubt over the current wording, but rather than take this expression of doubt into consideration, you call for page protection. The more sacrosanct any specific wording becomes, the worse off we are. I am not advocating change for the sake of change, but for the sake of clarity and consensus.

We who are trying to improve the presentation and explanation of IAR are trying to convince you -- as an individual -- of our goal. We do not yet see anything other than opposition to change, in the abstract, in what you have been saying here. I call upon you to review the principles embodied by IAR, and ponder how we might convey them more clearly. One thing is for certain: IAR is not sixteen words carved in stone.--Father Goose 21:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Except you're the only one advocating the new word change. The words are entirely yours, so again, the burden does not fall on me; it's on you. That said, continuing to insert your interpretation of IAR into the project page is probably the worst thing you can do and will end up not in a wording change but rather in you getting blocked. Trust me, I would know -- it got me blocked a few months ago. That was before I began to understand IAR and understand that trying to change the wording is pointless and a waste of time. You're not the first to fruitlessly propose a new change, and you won't be the last. I'm sorry but it's true. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Goose stop it, simply being determined is not enough to change things. Stubborn editing will more likely lead to you being blocked than getting your way. You have been changing this policy without consensus for days. Get consensus first, you can tell when you have consensus when people stop arguing with you and reverting you. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not support this edit Current revision (21:26, 14 September 2007) (edit) (undo), which Undid a good-faith edit within two minutes. The wording which was not allowed to stand was in no way defective in conveying the perennial policy implications of IAR. The wording which replaces it is not crucially superior, and rather than instant reverts, allowing reasonable attempts to go past the current version should be considered as a proposition. For instance, when the age-old "nervous and depressed" wording went up, it got reverted, just to return to this version. That too, was a too-quick revert.Newbyguesses - Talk 02:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that the version of 21:26, 14 September 2007 has been the primary version for over a year and the recent changes are not in any way based on a consensus. The "nervous and depressed" version has not enjoyed consensus for a very long time. Now, if you want to change policy, propose a change and get consensus for it. If you propose a change and do not get consensus for it then there is no justification for such a change. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is a subtle but substantial variation on the year-old version, and the variation was introduced only six weeks ago, without prior discussion to become, in effect, the newest consensus version.

I believe the consensus that has formed around it can be broadened to encompass an even larger number of editors who have engaged in the discussion of IAR. I think we are all here with the common goal of preserving the ideas behind IAR -- not simply the words.

I am not motivated by stubbornness. I am not trying to make a point. I do not feel my efforts are fruitless. I simply think there are still useful changes we could make the the wording of IAR. And I know that reverts are no substitute for thoughtfulness and discussion.--Father Goose 04:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

When discussion leads to the conclusion and consensus that your changes should be made, that is what we shall do. Until then, please argue your point on this talk page, and not on the actual policy page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The current version is not one year-old, it is six weeks old, and has only a weak consensus. A change to the wording of one sentence does NOT constitute a change to policy, it is just another way to express the same policy. Mindless reverts, without consideration for the good faith of editors, or any understanding of the issues, do not help to improve Wikipedia.Newbyguesses - Talk 08:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

5 November 2006, it goes hack farther than that. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was referring to the "working with others" phrase, which has been flavour of the month. And I have no problem with that wording from Nov2006, twelve words only, that's fine.Newbyguesses - Talk 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I personally could take or leave that part. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Some people dislike that part quite a bit; others feel it, or something like it, is needed to convey the fact that collaboration is more primal than rules (and ignoring rules). What I've been doing lately is trying to find a wording that both camps can accept. I haven't yet seen evidence that either of those camps is opposed to the wording I've been proposing. Until I understand what's wrong with the wording (aside from oh my god, you changed it), I'll continue pressing for someone to explain why it's wrong.--Father Goose 20:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that your wording is "wrong," but I've explained why I feel that it isn't as good as the current wording or the previous long-standing version. —David Levy 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Press, but press on the talk page, not the policy page. I firmly believe you should have every right to propose and campaign for change, but you need to do so through discussion, not repeatedly making the same or similar edits. The last week of the policy's history looks like a slow motion battle, yet it should not be changed at all till there is a clear consensus here on the talk page. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've made two edits in the past week. (Oh, wait, I made four; two reverts, anyhow.) I guess you're expecting me to make a dozen more. I feel those two edits were not out of place. People stay silent when they're not confronted with the possibility of change. I got you talking; I need to get others talking as well, even if the answer is ultimately "no, that's no good". If that is the answer, I accept it. However, I will wait upon that answer, not "Argh, don't change it!"--Father Goose 00:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions should be excluded from this rule

Admins are like hosts of wikipedia, who are supposed to treat guests with dues. If an admin just edits(without using admin powers) he may ignore rules, but while taking admin actions, he should not ignore rules. Admin actions should be excluded from WP:IAR. Vither mupe 08:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Admins have already gone through a procedure to ensure they are trusted by the community. There are many situations in which admins are required to rely on their own common sense or where there are conflicting interpretations of the rules. Arguably, WP:IAR should apply more to admins than to users who have not been endorsed by the community in a procedure like RFA. Waggers 08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR used to apply double for admins, but they did need to be a lot more careful when applying it. These days, admins are somewhat rare, but at the same time they're hardly really needed anymore either, since the software now catches most of the issues that used to require a cool head and some level of technical and community understanding. Perhaps we can get rid of admins entirely. That would be nice, since then more smart people could get away with applying IAR (and BE BOLD) more regularly, with less accusations of "Evil admin unilateralism". --Kim Bruning 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC) What, me? Preposterous, I'd never do something like that.... would I?

If admins cannot ignore rules, we are doomed to a bureaucratic failure. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

An exemption from this rule for admins would be bad. But if you're having to ignore a rule regarding admin conduct, since such rules are usually pretty well thought out, you had better have a very good reason. Regular editing can get away with some degree of "well, I just felt that this was right so I did it regardless of what the rules say". But for admin actions, you should have a specific reason why the rule should not apply in the case of what you did. -Amarkov moo! 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say that if anyone is to ignore a rule the had best have a good reason. I don't think non-admin users should ignore rules because they feel like it, they should do so only if the rule prevents them from helping the encyclopedia, and they need to be able to explain how. This is really not an area where a distinction between admin and non-admin is needed. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that non-admins should have a good explanation for why the rule should be broken as well. It's just more important with admin actions. -Amarkov moo! 03:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Great minds think alike, and apparently we do too sometimes. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL!!!one!!!1 —Миша13 09:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions can not be easily reverted, unlike normal editing. Blocking/protecting or even editing of protected pages take its own time to get reverted, even an action made out of error. Vither mupe 03:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin actions can be easily reverted, just like normal editing. There are over 1000 people who can do it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You happen to be one of those 1000. I don't know if you'd characterze admin actions as "easy to revert" if you weren't one. Separately, admins are less free to revert each other than regular users, by the terms of WP:WHEEL.--Father Goose 04:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New version about "working with others"

Why does the new version of IAR require that a person consult the rules unless they are actively working with others, that they cannot simply edit the encyclopedia? This new version was never actually resolved before beyond statements that working without recognition of there even being any others as equivalent to "working with others", that an individual person building a model airplane must be "working with others" because he bought the raw materials at a hardware store. —Centrx→talk • 23:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a legitimate flaw in the wording; but the version sans "working with others" has the worse problem that it seems to allow you to ignore such rules as WP:OWN, WP:3RR ("My version is an improvement, so I can revert all I want"), WP:AGF, WP:HARASS ("He's a disruptive troll! I'll follow him around to warn others about his disruptive trolling! (Please ignore the fact that I have no proof of him being a disruptive troll.)"), and other behavioral guidelines. Do you have any suggestions on how to improve the current wording, so that both flaws are remedied? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

IAR has never promised exemption from reaction. If someone misuses it then then they will experience the consequences. I do not believe that "working with others" is a necessary prerequisite of ignoring the rules to improve the encyclopedia. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:3RR, and the others you listed do not have any special precedence over any other rule. Being an asshat is not "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", just like a POV essay is not "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". Neither are specified in IAR, but that does not mean that they are thereby allowed and everything that "Wikipedia" means does not need to be mentioned here. You could replace "working with others" with "civilly", which would be better but would still be elevating the concept of civility above other "rules". We could have an IAR that said "If the rules prevent you from civilly improving or maintaining a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia", but that makes IAR be an anti-rule that nevertheless references specific rules. The point here is to be as general as possible, as an open-wiki encyclopedia is intrinsically equivalent to IAR; people are going to be asshats regardless of whether it is forbidden here. —Centrx→talk • 02:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I do! I do! (Or at least, I'm hard at work on it.)

• Wikipedia's rules are a set of common standards we use to help us build an encyclopedia. If the rules don't help with that, ignore them.

Is the above wording felt to be wrong by either those who support the "working with others" version or those who oppose it? True, it's not so terse that you could split atoms with it... but does it bridge the divide?--Father Goose 00:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your "model airplane" analogy is silly, Centrx. No one ever said anything of the sort. As has repeatedly been noted, making a constructive contribution to the encyclopedia's creation is working with others. Whether anyone else is editing that particular page doesn't matter, as all of us [should] share the common goal of improving and maintaining Wikipedia. A valid analogy is that a person constructing a chimney (while different people lay shingles on the roof and paint the walls) is working with others to build a house. —David Levy 02:40, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike a chimney, an encyclopedia article can stand on its own, and if a lone passer-by wishes to start the construction of a house all by himself, for his own amusement or for the love of architecture, and then leaves never to return, he is not suddenly "working with others" when someone else comes by and adds to it. —Centrx→talk • 01:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Our articles don't merely stand on their own. They collectively make up Wikipedia. Whenever someone improves or maintains one, he/she is working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 04:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No, any good encyclopedia article can stand on its own; editing one article does not obligate someone to beef up the network of surrounding articles or interact with anyone. "Working with others" is not equivalent to "working without others". —Centrx→talk • 04:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I said that our articles don't merely stand on their own. Each is a part of Wikipedia. So if someone constructively edits one, he/she is working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia.

I wrote nothing about "beef[ing] up the network of surrounding articles." —David Levy 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lemme try too! :-)

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. If your situation doesn't happen to fit, feel free to ignore them.

Hmm, that has several problems, though it does explicitly mention what the project namespace actually documents. --Kim Bruning 03:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A long version always has risks...

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, it'll work out just fine.

Does cover most of the "if wikipedia makes you nervous and depressed" even. And since Mediawiki is pretty tough by now, this is actually more true now than it was a couple of years ago. --Kim Bruning 03:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm still scratching my head about adding cooperation with others. <scratches head> how to add a reference to consensus in there too... I already have too many words again. :-/ --Kim Bruning 04:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Well this just makes it longer, and might be too informal for some:

Wikipedia guidelines document known best practices for many different situations. At the same time, nothing you can do will seriously harm the Wiki. If you can't immediately come up with a guideline that applies, just do what seems right. Don't worry, as long as you just keep talking with everyone, and keep listening carefully, it'll work out just fine.

<scratches head> But how to boil it down? --Kim Bruning 04:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're curious, I think that for many people, a wiki is still an amazing new experience they've never dealt with before. So I'm looking at a page from an old old booklet that deals with a similar situation: BBC Welcome guide, page 5, "if you've never used a computer before". The key sentence is where they say that there is very little you can do that will damage the machine, so you should not be afraid to experiment. --Kim Bruning 04:11, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That is actually a fairly good version. IAR doesn't have to be less than twenty words, or gnomic, IMO; as long as it touches on the major points mentioned by Rockstar915 above (1) We are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia. 2) Content is more important than policy. 3) Wikipedia is a collaborative project that requires consensus to be sought.), and is easily understood, there's no need to apply a rotary screw compressor to get the exact wording down to as close to zero size as is possible. Being wordy is okay, as long as it doesn't descend into loquaciousness. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 05:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding a rule about "working with others" assume the rules can meet every possibility involving working with others. The whole point of IAR is that the rules cannot meet every possibility, so introducing this qualification on ignoring rules is contrary to the spirit of the rule itself. There are times when consensus should be ignored, for example if the consensus was to violate Florida law, Wikipedia would be compelled to ignore that consensus due to its servers being in Florida. It does not take much "what if" role-playing to realize that "ignore all rules" is designed to bypass all the little things that the rules did not intend for, and that includes "working with others". ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Centrx's somewhat legit flaw above (what if you're working alone?), this isn't a flaw, because you're misreading the sentence of IAR as it is: "If a rule prevents you from working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia, ignore it."; in other words, "working with others" narrows the scope of when (rather than what) rules can be ignored. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it is written, the sentence only applies to rules that prevent working with others. If the purpose of adding "working with others" is to prevent misinterpretations or rules-lawyering, misinterpreters and rules-lawyers will similarly constrain IAR by a literal reading of the sentence. —Centrx→talk • 01:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy contains no mention of working with others to perform a particular edit or to edit a particular page. It only refers to "working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia." Again, any constructive edit is a means of working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 01:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The way it was written before, it was not even necessary for someone to have any intention of even improving Wikipedia, they need only have incidentally done so. If I write a great article because I want to write a great article, I am not obligated to do so with the specific purpose even of improving Wikipedia, let alone working with others to do so. Again, a constructive edit can be made without any interaction with others, or even knowledge of the existence of others working. —Centrx→talk • 04:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

1. To which previous version of the policy are you referring?

2. Again, someone who writes a great article without anyone's assistance is still working with others to improve or maintain Wikipedia. —David Levy 05:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lubaf, I don't think we should narrow the scope of "when", I think the scope should intentionally be kept wide. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 13:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree; the scope should be narrow; IAR is for when 1.) You legitimately don't know the rules (the intent of the "rules to consider" version), or 2.) As a relief valve for when the rules aren't working, or don't cover the situation at hand. That's it. Those are broad situations, yes, but they're also subject to very straightforward tests, and thus, easily judged after the fact. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 06:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there's no good reason to have the "working with others" words in there. Yes, collaboration is part of editing, I doubt anyone is disputing this. But it's not particularly relevant to ignoring the rules. It may be worthwhile having a bit in there that states clearly that ignoring the rules does not mean ignoring other editors, but I think that's already covered in Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Friday (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, the idea proposed here doesn't have either wording. :-) --Kim Bruning 13:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Kim Bruning's suggested wordings

I have a few problems with these. First, we need to address policies as well as guidelines (so going back to "rules" might be best). Second, the rules aren't just "best practices". The guidelines usually are, but the policies sometimes spell out principles or legal necessities. For that reason, I prefer "common standards", which in my mind is a superset of "best practices". Third, I don't feel your suggestion does enough to underscore "we are here for one reason only: to build an encyclopedia." If you "come up with a guideline that applies", but following it would be bad for the encyclopedia, you should ignore it.--Father Goose 06:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Only foundation statements spell out legal necessities. All binding concepts are written in PHP, not English. All else is guidelines as per the (closest) dictionary definition. Though perhaps an even better wording would be "best practices": "Processes and activities that have been shown in practice to be the most effective.". Hmm, maybe I'll start using that.

I think the word "rule" is a misnomer when it comes to things that are in the project namespace. Ignore all rules is a great guideline best practice, because it explicitly de-fangs the concept of rules.

Check your favorite dictionary and see if you can agree! :-)

--Kim Bruning 04:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both WP:COPYVIO and WP:BLP have legal underpinnings. If we had the legal wherewithal to ignore them, we could make a better encyclopedia. But if we do ignore them, we'll get shut down by a US court of law.

Separately, "best practice" is bizspeak. Your "even better wording" solves that problem, although "processes and activities" doesn't map onto "policies and guidelines". IAR is not likely to be renamed, so I don't see a problem with continuing to use the short, readily understood word "rule" and have it be a stand-in for WP:POL.--Father Goose 23:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The issue we have with this is that everyone thinks the article they are working on and interested in, or the point of view they want to apply to article etc is the "special circumstance" in which this should be applied, and recently the only times I've seen it used are as an attempt at at trump card in a discussion in which policy clearly disagrees with someone. We're here to build an encyclopedia, but without standards we're no better than a free webhost. Everyone thinks what they are doing is the "best" for the encyclopedia (outside of vandals) so really exactly what does this do and what's its purpose?--Crossmr 23:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because we don't want the rules to ever become dogma. We're not here to follow a bunch of rules, we're here to build an encyclopedia. It's easy to swat aside a single editor who has an axe to grind -- who would say "fuck the rules" anyway -- but we really screw ourselves when we treat authority as more important than common sense.--Father Goose 08:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

So then why have the other rules? just for fun? I think if history (mankinds and even wikipedias) has taught us, the larger the group of people you have together, the more important rules become. Setting standards are requiring individuals follow them is the only way to ensure that the encyclopedia gets built (and wikipedia is just not used to keep someone's family tree). Everyone has their own definition of common sense and what is good. You claim we're not here to follow a bunch of rules, but if I went around engaging in edit wars, I'd be banned. Why? Maybe I feel the edit I'm pushing is best for the encyclopedia, who are you to tell me, what I'm thinking? We have a rule against that? So what, we're ignoring them all when they get in the way, right? Oh, but consensus and 3rr are rules that really shouldn't and can't be ignored right? You can't make a blanket statement like that and doing so gives this "policy" false power. The only people who intentionally invoke it seem to do so to try and win a debate. So really this policy does nothing but create an additional talking point in most disputes that has to be quashed before things can move forward.--Crossmr 12:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There should really be an FAQ, I've repeated this many times.

• While you can ignore all rules, you cannot ignore consensus
• The wiki, partially by accident, partially by design , segments the community. Therefore at any location, only a small subset of the community is communicating. This is the ideal circumstance for consensus. Having more rules than people or lines of text is contra-productive.
• Early on, some people designed systems that subvert the wiki by forcing people together and adding extra rules. These systems worked early on, due to small numbers of people. Almost all of these systems are now either broken, or have evolved to split people out again. (eg each individual wp:rfa and wp:afd discussion is now held on a separate page).
• All "rules" must be descriptive, not prescriptive. This is a (meta)rule. Attempts to create prescriptive rules fail. Descriptive rules work differently from prescriptive rules. (If you want to change a descriptive rule, the first step is to break it).
• Consensus trumps any "rule" you might perceive to exist. Hence what is explicitly stated here. In fact you can be banned for turning the letter or the rules against themselves and you can be laughed at for trying to just quote them verbatim. You need to be able to defend each action without reference to the project namespace if need be. Linking to the project namespace is merely a convenient shorthand.
• What most people learn in school is pretty much bs, this is equally true for civics and rules. It is often said that "wikipedia only works in practice, not in theory". Take the time to learn how the system works, worry about the why later. If we went by people's theory, wikipedia would be totally impossible in the first place, after all.

--Kim Bruning 19:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I've argued the same and that was kind of my point here. There really are "rules" that this does not apply to, but its used in those situations. For example when I point out to someone that the self-published source they want to use in article space doesn't meet the criteria laid out in WP:V (e.g. its just some random blog) and I ask them to demonstrate otherwise before doing so, what I'm often met with is a response of IAR when they can find no way to use the source with the existing policies and guidelines. This is 99% of the usage I see of IAR. Someone wants to do something (usually to push pov or to establish notability of a fringe subject) and when they can't the fall back is IAR. Someone mentioned in a previous discussion we were having here that some of the other language wikis (french I think was one) included these caveats on the IAR page stating, you can't use this to trump, NPA, NOR, V, etc. --Crossmr 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You can't win a debate merely by invoking IAR. IAR gives you license to say "this rule is harmful and should not be followed", but you still have to convince others that it is in fact harmful. So again, good sense is a higher authority than "rules" -- and when the rules do codify good sense, there's no need to trump them. If one person doesn't like a rule but everyone else does, they're going against everyone else's good sense. But one should never ever assume that a rule is good sense, or even compulsory, just because it's a rule: without probing the purpose of the rule, and saying, yes, I agree with that, rules just become a game of Simon Says.

Separately, there are times when a rule is "good sense" in general but bad sense when applied to a specific situation. When a rule is wrong, it isn't always so wrong that we need to change it -- we just have to have the good sense to ignore it when it would produce the wrong result. It's like having a safety valve on a pressure cooker: it doesn't make the cooker "not work", but if the cooker malfunctions, the valve lets the cooker break gracefully, instead of causing harm.--Father Goose 21:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you can't win a debate by invoking IAR and you know it, but the people I encounter on article talk pages don't, until they've tried it and I explain to them that it doesn't work that way. The fact that that has to have been done multiple times by me (and I'm sure plenty of others) is an indication that there is a problem with the way this is being interpreted.

Separately, there are times when a rule is "good sense" in general but bad sense when applied to a specific situation. This is where we run in to most of the problems. It often involves articles about subjects which are on the internet and people think their cause is that "specific situation". The fringe internet topic they want to include has no conventional sources so they think that's license to run rampant with random blog citation and want to hang their hat on IAR to back that up. While we understand that that is not how this works, we need to spell it out once on the policy page so that we don't have to spell it out over and over on article talk pages.--Crossmr 22:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly an advocate of making IAR less of a koan, although I expect editors like the ones you describe would act as they do even if they didn't think (or claim) IAR backed them up. All the same, it's my feeling this version would work better against that situation.--Father Goose 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what, before reading your response, I revisited the history, and somehow I missed that version. (There's a lot of history, ok?) Anyway, thanks for pointing it out. I really like that version. I was thinking you meant something else (below). My new proposal is reverting back to this version minus the "See also" section. Rocket000 08:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think it's very useful to link to something like WIARM, although maybe it could be repurposed as a list of examples of how to effectively use IAR. If we can offer supplementary guidance that is understandable and correct, it's a benefit. But as a title, "What IAR means" might be too strong, suggesting it's a complete explanation.--Father Goose 09:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

This came from another essay

The following came out from an essay Wikipedia:The rules are principles, and was based there on some English case law on planning guidance. It seemed it was a sensible way of rationalising IAR which is rather bare and perhaps is assumed to permit more than it does. In summary it is saying, you are free to ignore all rules, but only with reasoned justification.

The rules are principles, not laws, on Wikipedia. The policies and guidelines are there to explain the principles and provide guidance, not to exactly define the principle nor to constrain the principle in exacting language. They must be understood in context, using some sense and discretion.

The rules are guidance on those principles, helping to elaborate them in a concrete fashion for editors. We should neither fetter our discretion, nor disregard policies and guidelines. Finding an appropriate balance is not always an easy task, and should be done in the context of the principles supporting them and the greater good of the encyclopedia.

Thoughts? Spenny 23:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the best Wikipedia essay I've ever had the pleasure of reading. It's getting at the philosophy behind this rule (as well as all of Wikipedia itself). We should make it a policy, even though it "always has been". Thank you very much for sharing. Rocket000 06:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm following this rule by breaking it

I was going to make a change to this page (not to the policy itself), then I figured I should follow its advice by breaking it...

Here's my proposal: Remove the "See also" part.

Here's why: Four reasons.

1. "Ignore all rules" is best policy we have. It's also the only one that has stayed as simple and straightforward as it was intended. By adding anything after it we're saying there's a catch. That there's more to it. But, the very nature of the rule says that itself. So the first reason is anything more is redundant.
2. When someone comes here for the first time, they won't fully understand it at first because of the obvious paradoxical nature. So they'll look for something to have it make sense. They see the "See also" and follow the link(s) and have someone explain it to them. This is not what we want. It's better for them to be confused for a little bit and actually think about it. When they start to understand it by themselves, it will have a far more rich and deeper meaning. (Which in turn leads them to following and citing it for the right reasons.)
3. It just adds clutter to the page. It takes away from the simplicity of the rule. Seeing the rule by itself adds to the complex and subtle meaning. {After they contemplated the rule, they might want to read more so they see the more reserved navigation box "Wikipedia's principles" and have at it. This serves the same purpose as "See also" but in a much better way.}
4. It encourages people to add more links. More things which goes against my other three points. The only link that's currently listed is just an essay. By linking to it, it implies some sort of "official" status or a even just a consensus.

I guess for right now my proposal is to remove one link and a "See also" header, but it is also a proposal to keep this page as it is without anything more added.

I really don't mind being proved wrong, so don't hold anything back if you disagree. Thank you. Rocket000 06:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I agree. Simple, clear, effective. The additions that have creeped in only detract from the point being made. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Better still would be to make IAR more readily understood. While it does embody a contradiction, the biggest reason why it's not readily understood (IMO) is because we don't do a good job of explaining why we have this rule. WP:WIARM does that job reasonably well. And I would venture to say that the what WIARM says does have consensus.

If IAR contained a better explanation of the rationale behind it -- not necessarily a wordy one either -- we'd have less need for WIARM.--Father Goose 06:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it can be explained without being verbose, but that's the beauty of it - it doesn't need to be. Rocket000 06:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I also propose using this version to help explain why we have this rule, without undermining the intent or being wordy. Rocket000 08:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"working with others"

I don't know how this crept in, but it is not a requirement for ignoring the rules. I see no point in adding qualifications to an idea that is designed to get around the inability of rules to work in every situation. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It "crept in" in a very simple fashion. It was added while those who don't care a lot about rules (and prefer to improve Wikipedia instead) were not looking. Some folks tried to oppose but were soon enough reverted by tons of hawks watching the page (this "working with others" bit gives a false sense of security against zomgadminabuse). And only because they were in apparent majority (what could freakofnurture, myself and few others do?) they invoked WP:CCC and called this "concensus", regardless of people who disagree with that version. Миша13 18:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer that the language in question be omitted, but I don't believe that the above is a fair account. There was a great deal of discussion (and argumentation) about this, and such a compromise was the closest thing to consensus that emerged. —David Levy 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If you'd care to read the talk page (and its archives), you'd understand "how this crept in." For the record, I agree that this addition is unnecessary, but I feel that it's an acceptable compromise. —David Levy 18:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

(Copy and pasting from above) The problem is that the version sans "working with others" seems to allow you to ignore such rules as WP:OWN, WP:3RR ("My version is an improvement, so I can revert all I want"), WP:AGF, WP:HARASS ("He's a disruptive troll! I'll follow him around to warn others about his disruptive trolling! (Please ignore the fact that I have no proof of him being a disruptive troll.)"), and other behavioral guidelines. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It is called ignore all rules. If you have a list of rules it does not apply to then you don't get it. IAR also does not promise you won't get blocked if you act like a fool, so no such permission is being given. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to this exact comment. Referencing "working with others" will not cause people to stop being asshats. The behaviors you mention do not constitute "improving" Wikipedia. It is antithetical to IAR to reference rules in IAR, however obliquely. —Centrx→talk • 04:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of a change to IAR

1. Some person makes a change to the policy.
2. People revert on the grounds that IAR is perfect the way it is.
3. Edits are traded until the page is protected.
4. People discuss on the talk page, using variants of either "YOU WANT POINTLESS BUREAUCRACY" or "YOU SUPPORT DISRUPTION".
5. Whoever yells the loudest makes the opponents give up.
6. Every 2 months or so, someone reverts back to the "original" version (which is actually now not the original) on the grounds that IAR is perfect the way it was.
7. See 1.

-Amarkov moo! 05:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)