User:Dylan Lake/IAR
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Jimbo
Perhaps I should explain what it means to me. It does not mean that it is ok to make personal attacks. It does not mean that it is ok to be a POV pusher. And so on and so forth. What it really means is that, ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules. You just get to work, do something fun, and nobody hassles you as long as you are being thoughtful and kind. What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule.--Jimbo Wales 16:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] UninvitedCompany
"Ignore all rules" is an unfortunate title for an important concept. The fact that Jimbo supports IAR in its present form has ended most serious debate about it. There is widespread support for the core concepts that (a) rules are a means to an end rather than an end in themselves, (b) judgement and the best interests of the project take precedence over rules, (c) wide lattitude is given to serious participants in the project who take action in good faith that is technically not in compliance with the rules, and (d) none of this is an excuse for recklessness or personal aggrandizement. There is considerable opposition to oversimplifying this concept into "ignore all rules." There is also considerable support for the oversimplified edition of the concept. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Demi
In attempt to get a handle on the status of this rule through the history of the page, I offer the following timeline. I've only investigated the changes related to the "officialness" or "ruleness" of the page, not its content, which has changed back and forth in various ways during the same period. Also, I have not really listed the various quite recent changes associated with the current brouhaha.
The page was created on 17 April 2002 [1] with no particular statement about policy, shortly thereafter being described as a "rule" [2] in the text which wording it has held basically since.
On 7 October of 2004 (over two years later), a category was added identifying it as official policy [3]; this was changed to a semipolicy category on 9 December [4] and reverted to the policy category [5].
After four months of wearing the policy category, it was removed on 21 January 2005 [6]. It was added back and reverted on 8 March 2005 ([7] [8]), on 13 March ([9] [10] [11]), being left with a semipolicy category.
After not quite a month, various templates were applied, starting with an "inactive policy template", including "guideline," "notpolicy," and "validity disputed." It ended up with no identifier. This happened on 5 April ([12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]) and similarly on 19 - 21 September (starting with a proposal template and ending up with none [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]).
The {{policy}} tag was applied a few days later, on 29 September, and this stood for almost a month until it was changed to {{guideline}} on 23 October; then "inactive" [29] and ultimately removed on 24 October [30].
