Jump to content

Wikipedia:Ignore every single rule

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WP:IAR states that you should ignore a rule if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The question is, what is "improving" Wikipedia? Is it to include anything that you know to be true, regardless of verifiability? Is adding hate-provoking or disgusting content going to improve the reader experience? Does being bold mean that you can simply delete the main page without discussing it first?

What is improving Wikipedia?[edit]

The main objective is of course to provide useful information. If a use is found for a piece of information, it is useful by definition. Useful information can be anything, such as how to bake a cake or what time it is. New uses can be invented for apparently worthless pieces of info; they can, for example, be used as code keys. Rumours are also occasionally true. Additionally, false information is still information, and can be used for deceiving people—as valid a use for information as any other. A white lie won't hurt anyone, and can be very entertaining. Besides, there is no use to telling the truth to those who already know it, so those who may notice the discrepancies are outside the target audience and therefore any feedback by them inconsequential.

Let's also not forget reader experience. Bored or annoyed readers will not of course learn anything from us. Adding colour in texts for decoration and some witty humour will make learning a pleasure! Any non-sequitur (be it profanity, mindless, or ungrammatical) will do as a joke, because the occurrence of sudden irrelevance itself is already humorous. Changing the font of an article for illustrative purposes is highly encouraged as well! Also, more detail in plot summaries allows for a more emotional impact, giving a more enjoyable experience for our readers. With a good synopsis, they don't even need to buy the work! Besides, some stories are really boring, so why not improve them? No one unfamiliar with the work will notice or care, and giving Romeo and Juliet a happy ending will not make our readers depressed. Those who remember the real ending will not notice, as they obviously won't bother reading something they already know. Those who read it however, will probably like the new ending more. The same principle can be extended to real world events and history as well. Ever felt downhearted by all the needless suffering in the world—war, slavery, discrimination, famine, poverty, disasters, genocide? Or, worst of all, an opinion you disagree with? No worries, the world can easily be made to seem a better place by rewriting history and censoring opposing views, even those backed by prominent experts and science. Who's not to say feelings are more important than facts?

Why the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia[edit]

An encyclopaedia collects information. WP:NOT has a list of types of information which should not be included - but the reasons are a bit questionable. Having a date service would help entertain our visitors, and it wouldn't seriously harm Wikipedia, would it? Also, a statement (such as "In my opinion, my cat is not a dog") states a piece of information (in this case, what the person's opinion on his cat is), so any statement can be included. As any prose obviously has a lot of statements, Wikipedia can be almost anything listed in WP:NOT. Let's not forget information in the computer world, either! Even meaningless characters are info in this context.

There is no reason not to include information. Information is information, sources or not, true or false. Having to follow WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V hinders the addition of information, thus preventing you from improving Wikipedia, and they should be completely ignored for that reason. Any information can be considered useful, for one reason or another, and should be included regardless of WP:NOTABILITY (for example, it is useful to create an article about why a cat isn’t a dog). There is no way to judge one piece of information as more or less useful than another, either, so there is also no need to prioritise them; hence, WP:UNDUE is to be ignored.

As many studies have shown, a heightened emotional state enhances the strength of a memory being formed. Would you seriously expect disinterested readers to actually remember what they've just read? WP:NPOV and WP:FORMAL are all about increasing the monotony of Wikipedia and are thus decreasing emotional involvement. To hell with them! Use emotional, passionate language and don't be afraid to make bold, risky statements in controversial articles! The more controversial, the better! One must be sure to catch the reader's attention, evoke anger, laughter and/or disbelief, and create truly unforgettable articles.

See also[edit]