Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.
Shortcut:
WT:IAR
Warning sign Significant revisions are proposed to this policy or guideline. You may wish to look at the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming to brainstorm and discuss possible revisions.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Logical inconsistency

Other policies such as WP:No original research specifically state that they are not superceded by other policies.

This leaves you with a case where two policies each say the other is wrong. One says that you can ignore all rules if they prevent improving Wikipedia; the other one says that it must always be obeyed and that the "ignore all rules" policy cannot change that.

This is a contradiction. Ken Arromdee 18:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct; this is a logical inconsistency. But, to put it in logical terms, consider the premise that certain other polices may not be superceded by any other policy to be, in effect, false. WP:OR is not superceded by other policies except this one. So, therefore there is not a contradiction. I wouldn't suggest noting this on any other policy page, though. It would just clutter it up, and maybe even suggest breaking the rules. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 20:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
And you are also supposing that adding original research to Wikipedia qualifies as "improving Wikipedia". —Centrx→talk • 20:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how anyone could use WP:IAR in exuse to breaking WP:OR.--KojiDude (viva la BAM!) 20:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest Wikipedia_talk:No original research#Pool Forge Covered Bridge and OR as a place where WP:IAR is a reasonable excuse for breaking WP:OR. Ken Arromdee 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Two things: First of all, for other editors looking for the comment, it is now located at Wikipedia talk:No original research/archive13. Secondly, I agree that the above makes a decent case of IAR coming into play, after reading the whole bloody thing. I also agree that with WP:V coming into play there, it gets troublesome, what with someone suggesting getting their bit published in the local newspaper. That also seems a good case of throwing not only WP:OR out the window, but also WP:V as well under IAR. I have my own issues with WP:V, but, as Bruce Williams would say, "That's another program." SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No original research is superseded by several rules. If the no original research page claims different, then that should be corrected (again!). Part of the reason we have ignore all rules is because this kind of sillyness happens, (one hopes by accident.) It allows you to work on the encyclopedia without worrying too much. Kim Bruning 20:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok fixed. And the fix is non-negotiable :-P Kim Bruning 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason for WP:IAR is not so that old hands can use it as a justification for breaking the other rules. It exists so that newcomers can add content without feeling that they have to learn all the rules first. We are all responsible for our edits whether we ignore the rules or not and WP:POINT makes it clear that we should be called out for doing outstandingly bad work even if we are following policy to the letter while doing it. WP:IAR basically makes the accompanying point that we should not be called out for doing outstandingly good work even though we do not follow policy to the letter while doing it. That is the spirit in which WP:IAR should be read. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. WP:OR says it can't be superseded by other rules; this rule says it can supersede any other rule, including WP:OR. That's a contradiction. You're basically saying that it's not a contradiction because this rule doesn't actually say what it says.
WP:IAR certainly is there so that old hands can use it to break rules when needed. For one thing, consider the common sentiment that you should be breaking the rules knowingly--your "newcomers interpretation" would be meaningless here. Ken Arromdee 00:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem may be in thinking of them as rock-ribbed rules at all, rather than as guiding lines. Even in the policy pages on the most fundamental principles, someone "improving Wikipedia" is certainly following the principles assiduously, they may just not be following the text on the policy page that no one noticed was added a month ago. —Centrx→talk • 00:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comments are close to the mark. Policy did indeed start out as loose guidelines rather than rigid laws. While its rules have become more rigid with the growth in WP and the introduction of the ArbComm, the idea is still to follow the spirit of the rules, rather than the letter. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you follow the spirit, not the letter, of a rule which says "follow the letter, not the spirit"? Ken Arromdee 15:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Simple. Apply WP:IAR. That's just common sense, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm basically saying "who cares whether it's a contradiction or not". On Wikipedia people are more important than rules. If we end up being judged it will be for whether we have behaved sensibly or not, and not for whether we have slavishly followed the rules. That's why it doesn't matter whether WP:OR and WP:IAR contradict each other. Old hands may well use WP:IAR as "justification" for their behaviour but the fact is that like the rest of us they are (or at any rate should be) judged on their motivation and their behaviour, not on their rule-following ability. If it is sensible in one situation to follow WP:OR, then follow it. If it is sensible in another to follow WP:IAR, follow it. Either way you will be held responsible for using commonsense, not for following policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Judging people on their motivation and behavior is one of the things that WP:OR says you may not do. WP:OR explicitly says that it may not be overrruled by consensus of editors, and it will be a consensus of editors that judges your motivation and behavior. Nothing overrides WP:OR--not agreement that it is being applied in a resoundingly stupid way, not "motivation and behavior", not common sense--nothing. If you think that editors should be judged on their motivation and behavior, then fix the rule, because the rule says that they shouldn't.
Or can editors' consensus overrule the part which says not to use editors' consensus? Ken Arromdee 15:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is invoking apples when looking at oranges. IAR is about behavior. NOR is about content. The conduct of any editor is subject to the censure of the community. As has been discussed extensively, IAR is not a "get out of jail free" card nor a license to do whatever one wishes. If an editor invokes IAR to justify violation of NOR, the community consensus will (or at least should) find such conduct to be unacceptable. NOR is about content. And the statement in NOR about not being superceded by other policies or guidelines specifically (at least presently) indicates that it is the principles upon which NOR is based that are non-negotiable. The specific details of what is or is not OR is not as clear-cut as some try to make it out to be. There are many gray areas, which sometimes result in seemingly inconsistent outcomes. older ≠ wiser 15:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
In that case, there's still a contradiction, just a different one. Now the OR article is correct and the IAR article is wrong. It should say "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them--except for the rule saying that the principles behind WP:OR must be followed."
You can't get around the fact that there's a contradiction. If WP:OR really does mean there's something which is non-negotiable, fine--but then WP:IAR has to be changed to say that not everything is negotiable.
And even then, you've assumed that following the principles means avoiding OR. While that's usually true, I'm not convinced that that's true 100% of the time. Ken Arromdee 04:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
1) Violating the fundamental principles of an encyclopedia is not improving Wikipedia. 2) Ignore all rules does not mean the same thing as Break all rules. No rules conflict with IAR. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The only way to ignore a rule is to either
1) do something that by coincidence fits with the rule anyway, or
2) break it.
Assuming that by ignoring rules you don't mean 1), it follows that ignoring rules mean breaking rules. They're basically the same thing. Ken Arromdee 06:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No, most of the time if you are doing the right thing it coincides with what's written down. That's half the point with IAR. —Centrx→talk • 21:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If logical inconsistency between the rules worries you, please ignore it and get on with improving the encyclopedia. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You're asking me to ignore a contradiction that's *about what we're allowed to ignore*. That isn't logically possible. Ken Arromdee 20:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Now that's just thinking TOO much :D --PopUpPirate 21:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
You certainly can ignore inconsistencies in rules. Worrying about them is definitely a bad idea, so Ignore all rules applies. --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought this section was going to discuss: "Ignoring all rules means to ignore ignoring all rules, and then ignore ignoring ignoring all rules and...." ad infinitum. —Malber (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

  • If "Ignoring all rules" prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Yes, it is paradoxical; the point is that the encyclopedia comes first, the rules second (or possibly after that, depending). Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. >Radiant< 14:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's only "paradoxical" because nobody will fix it. Look, I'm not talking about the cutesy paradox that other people have suggested (you should ignore the rule which says to ignore all rules, which leads to a contradiction because if you ignore all rules you don't, etc.). I'm pointing out a contradiction in the ordinary sense: OR claims to be the final word, IAR says it's not. Each rule implies that the other one is wrong.
We have no business producing contradictory rules and making people have to figure out that IAR is the one which really takes precedence. Especially since quite a few people look at them and conclude that IAR *doesn't* take precedence. It really is impossible to figure out from the text of the rules whether OR can ever be ignored.
If our rules don't make sense together, they should be fixed so that they do. Refusing to fix broken rules on the grounds that IAR lets you get around them is questionable at best; and it's even more questionable when one of the broken rules *is* IAR. Ken Arromdee 17:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, each rule implies the other is wrong. And what happens is, when we are in a real situation, we'll decide which one applies. As a community. But we don't need to decide that now, because as far as I can see, nobody has brought an instance where it matters here. Steve block Talk 18:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, just above is the link to the covered bridge example, where someone had to violate NOR and Verifiability and had to invoke IAR in doing so. Or did you want examples where someone actually said "too bad I'm not allowed to ignore this rule"? I think it's unreasonable to demand the latter sort of example, because someone who reads the rules that way probably isn't going to write anything. Ken Arromdee 01:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what Ken is getting at. Put it this way: it used to be "Ignore all rules" was the first "rule to consider". Now there is no ordered list, and furthermore something claims to take precedence over everything. You know some people are going to hear "ignore all rules except NOR, which you must take as written, even if common sense and 'consensus' tell you otherwise". However, WP:NOR looks like it is going to be reworked into WP:ATT, which doesn't have the offending sentence. 66.230.200.227 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Who says we can't produce contradictory rules? --Tony Sidaway 19:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any logical contradiction. If you're ignoring WP:NOR anyway, you can always ignore WP:NOR's instruction that you not ignore it. See also WP:COPYVIO ("Wikipedia has no tolerance for copyright violations in our encyclopedia") (emphasis added). The only thing the strong language in WP:NOR and WP:COPYVIO accomplishes is to make it more difficult for editors to achieve consensus to ignore those rules, which may be appropriate in those cases. TheronJ 19:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but why, pretending you aren't an experienced wikipedian for a second, would you decide that you could get away with ignoring WP:NOR at all? "No tolerance" is very far from "this supercedes everything including other policies and consensus". Put another way: what do you think would happen if I tried to explicitly write "this supercedes IAR" into NOR or "this defers to NOR" into IAR? But, again pretending you're not an experienced wikipedian, isn't that what's already written? 66.230.200.227 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I was addressing the argument that there's a logical contradiction. As to whether the semantic conflict makes it more difficult to use WP:IAR, sure. However, (1) I want it to be difficult, but not impossible, to use IAR to ignore important policies such as NOR or COPYVIO, and (2) the last think I want to do is encourage inexperienced users to use IAR. (Suggesting that new users should start ignoring core policies because they think it would be for the good of the encyclopedia smacks of WP:BEANS, and will probably get plenty of them banned). TheronJ 21:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The perfect wiki would have no rules, of course. So the closer we are to that, the better, imo --PopUpPirate 23:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with your (2), TheornJ. Of course new users should use be bold and ignore all rules. That's usually the least controversial way to use of it. 192.75.48.150 15:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
In response to Theronj, it isn't so much that it would be difficult to gain consensus to ignore the copyright policy, it's that if by some act of collective insanity you managed to get such consensus, this would of course be ignored. We do not and cannot put Wikipedia policy (even consensus, which I think is an excellent and in general one of the more useful Wikipedia policies) before our legal obligations. --Tony Sidaway 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improved Audio -- Male, hi-fi

Spoken Wikipedia
This audio file was created from an article revision dated 2006-05-16, and may not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)

Chek it out. Heavily produced, including things that maybe shouldn't be written. I left the date in the filename, because Wikipedia raised a warning that left me thinking it might not be equipped to do versions of a file. I considered taking out the orijinal. I did not consider that maybe the audio should not lead the article. If I were writing it in HTML, it would be an <embed>. Brewhaha@edmc.net 20:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Process improvement

I nominate Process_improvement as the piped link for the word "improving" in the project guideline so as to give thoughtful readers and editors insight into some of the deep and subtle meanings of how "improving" something can be done in a logical and orderly manner so as to not let the overriding objective of "improving" Wikipedia be used as an excuse for the bane of lawlessness. Samuel Erau 15:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the improving is improving the encyclopedia, not necessarily improving processes. —Centrx→talk • 18:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right Centrx. The link would not directly represent how the word "improving" was used in the context of the sentence of policy. I had already felt that to be the main weakness of my suggestion. And in that weakness it probably does not fit proper guidelines for the usage of double bracket links. So never mind linking "improving" to Process_improvement.

When an editor finds themselves held back from improving and maintaining Wikipedia because of existing rules, what may be better than chaos is something similar to what in industry is called process improvement. There are many models that can be emulated for the refinement of rules for the purpose of the eventual objective of improvement. I imagine that perhaps it was a rejection of some of those models that led to the IAR policy. So now I suggest that we consider a model that is similar to the industry model of process improvement. I do not endorse it as the best choice. - Samuel Erau 10:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People who have issues with improvements can state them below and I will happily answer them

If you have any helpful suggestion on what to change, please post them here. 128.226.160.124 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, anonymous IP user, here's an issue with your self-declared improvements - What exactly does the "summary of Jimbo's essay" (not actually an essay but a brief 4 paragraph musing which the "summary" repeats like 75% of... but whatever) add to this policy page. Even if I imagine I were an WP:IAR supporter, I don't see what it adds, as the full text this 75% summary is already linked from this page (plus Jimbo's opinions are already highlighted). What the "summary" does add is the POV editorial comment and intepretation. The Jimbo "essay" does not mention IAR at all, and it can be straightforwardly intepreted as an argument for rules to protect against mob vs mob opinion/the weight of numbers (and what's with the bolding of "10 years" that doesn't appear in the original). The "essay" comes from a page about the IAR debate and does not obviously show Jimbo's support for IAR. You could give it the title "Rules trump mob rule on Wikipedia" and it would make more sense Bwithh 19:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah well, the whole thing's been reverted by another editor. Moving along... Bwithh 19:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I was bemused by the idea in the IP's edit that those who would end controversy by casting an article in a truly neutral point of view might "gain the upper hand" over tendentious partisans being introduced as, "the dangers of leverage". I'm pretty certain Jimbo was identifying a possible good ideal there, rather than warning of a danger. His statement could be paraphrased "Wikipedia is different from silly usenet groups where arguments never end, because here we can step outside the argument, and satisfy all parties." That's a "danger of leverage"? Huh? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove or amend this policy

This policy is "abuse waiting to happen". For example, authors will ignore the three-revert rule and will start edit wars because they think that it will be "the best for Wikipedia". --Ineffable3000 05:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I inserted language in the Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming page at one point that attempted to discourage this, saying that NPOV and consensus would ultimately rule the day, but that language has since been removed. So we have kind of touched on it, even if it didn't last for long. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's been a while since you made attempt at editing brain storming. Why not take another swing at it? -- Isogolem 19:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Not really. If they're not improving the encyclopedia—and edit warring does not improve the encyclopedia—they are going to be blocked for edit warring no matter how much they exasperatingly refer to their peculiar interpretation of this policy. —Centrx→talk • 19:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
People that obviously need to be blocked will never be able to cite this policy as a defense be and listened to. --Lord Deskana (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
No. If I'm edit-warring and my version is superior then I'm improving the encyclopedia, the person reverting to the inferior version is not. You may say that by continuing the edit war I'm negatively impacting the community or environment of the encyclopedia but that's not the same thing. Haukur 23:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Which I'd have to agree with. Ignore all rules, really does mean ignore all rules. That also means blocks and block evasion. If someone is putting an inferior version of an article in place, following this often cited policy, you'd be well within your rights to go so far as to hack the servers to remove all opposition to make sure the proper version was in place. I don't think anyone who supports this policy really has any idea what it actually means. If you have to ignore all rules in order to improve the encyclopedia there is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.--Crossmr 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If the servers are being hacked, that's a problem far beyond anything policy can address. Aside from that, you are arguing from a rule-centric point of view; but Wikipedia is not and never has been primarily rule-driven. It is consensus-driven. If the consensus of editors regards a particular action as vandalism or antisocial behavior, it doesn't really matter whether the rules support that action or not. The consensus will support reversion, and if that doesn't work the consensus will support blocking. And once again, if the consensus of editors is consistently supporting antisocial behavior, that's a problem far beyond anything that a policy can address. -- Visviva 02:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
consensus is a rule around here. There is a quote "If forty million people say a foolish thing it does not become a wise one, but the wise man is foolish to give them the lie". Consensus doesn't necessarily mean its better for the encyclopedia. It may be wise to let consensus rule to avoid future fighting and issues, but that is exactly what this policy addresses.--Crossmr 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Consensus isn't always right, but it's all we have. Top-down changes don't work in a wiki system. -- Visviva 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Your edit-warred version is not going to be implemented. The only effect of the edit warring is to clog up and crowd out legitimate edits and get people angry. If in fact your revision was cemented in the page because of your edit warring, and ignoring the collateral effects of edit warring, then it could be seen as improving the encyclopedia, but that's not what happens with edit warring. —Centrx→talk • 02:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You assume everyone who edit wars isn't making legitimate, article improving edits. What is edit warring? Breaking the rules. What does this policy address? Breaking the rules to improve the encyclopedia. If its not okay to edit war to improve an article, than this policy doesn't really mean that you can ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia, and obviously there are exceptions to this, hence why it needs to be amended or removed. Exactly which "rules" is it okay to ignore to improve the encyclopedia?--Crossmr 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
No, read my comment again. No matter how good the revision, edit warring is not going to result in that revision being part of the encyclopedia—in fact it may even prevent foment animosity against it. —Centrx→talk • 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I read your comment and understood it. That is a rule. This policy specifically states to ignore that rule. You see the problem. You claim edit warring has never benefited the encyclopedia, but edit warring takes two, or more. One of those versions was appropriate, and they were being fought over in an article. One side was obviously in the right. If there truly is a consensus that edit warring never improves the encyclopedia, then it should be amended into this policy, because obviously not ALL rules are meant to be ignored if one believes it would improve the encyclopedia. This policy requires personal interpretation. Just because you don't think edit warring improves an article doesn't mean user X thinks the same thing.--Crossmr 06:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why "one side was obviously in the right." In my limited experience, most such disputes are best resolved by finding a third option which everyone can live with. That's why we have mediation. For the exceptional cases, where one party is clearly acting in bad faith, there are established remedies. -- Visviva 07:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Lets say for example I make a wide sweeping change to an article that I believe makes the article better. You disagree and change it back. I revert. You revert. I revert again and someone else shows up and reverts it. We're edit warring. Either the original version that is being reverted to, or my new version is better. One of those people doing the reverting is "right". One of those versions will be kept, and eventually improved upon. The crux of this "policy" is that its personal interpretation. If you want to do something to improve this encyclopedia and its against the rules, ignore them. An admin would have no issue giving me a warning and a block at that time. But here I am, just following standing policy, so how does that work? It doesn't. If what I was doing was obvious vandalism "Bill Gates is a doo-doohead!" and fighting over that, but if what I was fighting over was perfectly fine sourced content, then I should be well within the bounds of wikipedia policy to edit war all day to make sure the version I think that improves wikipedia stays in. This is my point. Its quite obvious that IAR is not meant to actually mean "ignore ALL rules". As you said above consensus is all we have, well its still a rule, and this policy still says to ignore it if it prevents you from doing something that you think will improve wikipedia. You're giving license for any random individual, without knowing their motivations, to do whatever they think is necessary for improvement. This is great if everyone has exactly the same goals and ideas. Its not a great idea when you've got so many users with so many motivations and goals. That is why we have the rules in the first place. You and I may have slightly different ideas on what will improve the encyclopedia and basically this trumps all. No matter what you do, if I don't agree with it, I can say nothing because the response can be a generic "IAR".--Crossmr 16:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Geez, I think you people are getting carried away with extreme examples and literal interpretations of a rule meant to solve the problems caused by extreme examples and literal interpretations. IMO, this rule serves one major purpose: to allow knowledge to be added to the encyclopedia without requiring an exhaustive search for "official" sources. If I know from my job or history what chemical causes permanent markers to smell like permanent markers, I could type it up in an article without having to find a book somewhere that says the same thing. Someone may come along and claim WP:NOR or similar to delete my addition to the Permanent Marker entry, but WP:IAR overrules them -- the burden is on the person deleting content to prove that it should be deleted, not on the person adding content to prove that it should be added. If that were the case, we could delete about half of this encyclopedia because most of it comes from people just typing from the top of their heads and citing sources mostly as a way to resolve two conflicting stories. If two stories conflict, the one with better references wins. If neither have references, or both have equally credible references, then both stories stay (as is the case in many military related articles, where casualty figures are disputed). If there's only one version and nobody has another version, then WP:IAR basically means "some information is better than no information at all" and it can stay until someone can demonstrate why it needs to be deleted. I could use the rules to delete the entire Permanent Marker entry, because hey, where's their book citing proof that the ink is generally water resistant?? I could slam the rulebook on them and delete that whole thing. But that would be "being a dick", and indeed, when in doubt, don't be a dick; we can let the entry stand under WP:IAR. --TheCynic 20:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you need to have a good long look at WP:V under burden of evidence. On wikipedia the burden of proof lies with the editor wishing to add or re-add to the article the information, not the other way around. Otherwise we'd have all kinds of outlandish claims in articles. IAR is certainly not written to allow editors to jam half-baked theories and opinions into articles.--Crossmr 23:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-Reference

This article refers to itself, and I added the appropriate sentence. I don't think there is any reason this shouldn't be in here, since other similar wikipedia related articles contain the same sentence. Flying Hamster 03:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

OK I see the self-reference notice is only for categories, my mistake, srry Flying Hamster 03:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Self reference" typically doesn't mean articles referring to itself, it means more like articles saying "This article will cover" or something like that. The article should basically read like it is from an encylopedia, with no references to it being an article on Wikipedia, online. Aside from this, anything outside of the main namespace (for example, Help:, Wikipedia:, Talk: etc) is exempt from this rule, as they are not articles. So this rule doesn't apply here anyway. But thanks for your effort to improve Wikipedia. Good luck! --Lord Deskana (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia

This policy desperately needs to include the assertion that Wikipedia is an encylopedia in its statement - as a minimum protection against misunderstanding e.g. the revised version could be "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia as a reputable encyclopedia, ignore them." Way too many people don't see Wikipedia as an encyclopedia but as the dumping ground for whatever kind of info they fancy. Wikipedia's identity as an encyclopedia is official key policy no.1 and its "singular common goal" as stated in WP:POLICY Bwithh 19:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. In my view -- which is perhaps a bit eccentric -- this and all the other core policies derive fairly directly from the definition of Wikipedia as "a free encyclopedia which anyone can edit." Making that clear can only be a good thing. -- Visviva 07:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
... added: although all in all, I'd prefer to drop the word "reputable" there. Prone to misinterpretation. -- Visviva 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Example of Abuse

A person might start illegally uploading copyrighted images to Wikipedia. He is still improving Wikipedia but he is ignoring the copyright rules. --Ineffable3000 02:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

However, once found—and they are found, and copyright holders do complain—someone who could otherwise have been contributing to the encyclopedia has to go through and delete them all. A more egregious case is with text copyright infringement. Someone uploads some great text making a great article but then after it is found all subsequent edits and improvements to it have to be deleted; that's a lot of people's work thrown away because of uploading copyrighted text. This is also assuming no one gets sued. None of this ultimately improves Wikipedia. —Centrx→talk • 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, illegally uploading copyrighted images doesn't at all constitute "improving Wikipedia" on the still-important idealistic level, we are trying to create a free encyclopedia, so it would be hard to defense going against one of our core concepts as doing something that improves the project. --W.marsh 03:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think what we see here is that a lot of people don't realize the unwritten rule is that you don't just claim you're improving Wikipedia to successfully ignore a rule, other people actually have to agree that you're improving Wikipedia, otherwise citing IAR won't do you much good. I've tried to include this in the page occasionally but been reverted. --W.marsh 04:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to spell out that "improving" and "pretending to improve while actually jeopardizing" are different things? I guess I'd agree that the insistence that this page remain precisely one vague sentence is a little bit pathological.... it's like one of those Wikipedia mysteries: The IAR that can be explained is not the true IAR! Still, I don't see the distinction between "improving" and "subjecting to legal liabilty" as something that really confuses many people or needs to be detailed.
I guess better than adding material to this page would be to write an essay about it, and see whether people start linking to it. That's probably the best way we have to modify policy - write better policy, call it an essay, and then let others promote it as actualy policy when they realize how brilliant it is. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Evidently it goes over a lot of people's heads. I'm not talking about writing an exhaustive novel here on the concepts of ignoring all rules, just adding a simple second sentence to correct the kneejerk misconception 50% of people seem to have upon first reading IAR. And yes I realize all instruction creep starts out as "just adding one simple sentence"... --W.marsh 04:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it would help. People who wish to abuse IAR in this way will do so whether or not we try to tell them not to. Maybe I'm just claiming sour grapes because this page is notoriously un-sticky as far as such edits go. I'm curious, though... what would this one sentence say, exactly? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that we need a good definition of improve. --Ineffable3000 05:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Improve is a well defined word. The purpose of Wikipedia is also well-defined. —Centrx→talk • 06:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact remains that if someone tries citing this as a reason for illegally uploading images, they'll get blocked anyway, and told to shut up. Whether this is written down or not makes no difference. --Deskana talk 11:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:IAR

If WP:IAR prevents me from improving Wikipedia, I will ignore it. --Ineffable3000 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Was this policy ever actually legitimatly used? Can you give an example? --Ineffable3000 05:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is used frequently, such as any time someone wants to make a change but doesn't want to look it up in a rule book. —Centrx→talk • 06:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
How does IAR prevent you from improving wikipedia? — Seadog 22:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
because other editors use it as an excuse to make changes to an article you don't agree with?--Crossmr 06:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Any changes must stand or fall on their merits. If the community accepts the changes, they stay; if not, they go. I don't see how this page makes any difference one way or the other, except that it makes it clear that no rules are absolutely binding; but in the wiki context, that's a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one. If you are having problems with the specific editors active on a specific page, there are a wide variety of options available to resolve the disagreement. Cheers, -- Visviva 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested alteration

Add "An exception is neutral point of view, which is absolute and non-negotiable and should never be ignored."

This policy, as it is, contradicts the NPOV policy because it says all rules may be ignored, while NPOV states that NPOV may not be ignored.

There's a similar problem with original research, but there's no need to bother with that since it will probably be merged into Wikipedia:Attribution without the contradiction. Ken Arromdee 08:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

No, writing POV articles would not be improving the encyclopedia. —Centrx→talk • 09:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
This may be a minor point, but I have to point out that nowhere in the current text of WP:NPOV does it say that it may not be ignored by individual editors. It does say that it's absolute and non-negotiable, but that has more to do with whether the community can decide to override or fundamentally change it by consensus (which is clearly not allowed).
Now, I'm not saying that it would be acceptable to deliberately violate NPOV (that wouldn't exactly be ignoring the policy), but it may occasionally be constructive for an editor to be bold and push forward with a set of improvements to an article without thinking about NPOV... Indeed, whether we care to admit it or not, Wikipedia is full of contributors who make valuable contributions while falling seriously short of (and presumably ignoring) NPOV; their contributions are fixed by other editors, who might not have been able to make the original contributions themselves. That's why we all work together... At any rate, I don't really see a contradiction between the two policies. -- Visviva 09:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure you can interpret the two policies to be consistent, but the hair-splitting you need to do to do so is one that nobody who just reads the two policies is going to come up with. On the face of it, IAR says that everything can be ignored and NPOV says that is not true. Claiming that "non-negotiable" isn't the same as "may not be ignored", or that "deliberately violating" isn't the same thing as "ignoring", or that IAR only applies to improvement and POV articles are by definition not improvements solves the contradiction only in a very legalistic kind of way.
(And I may add, we don't do this in other cases. For instance, I'm sure you can think of applications of IAR when we *do* ignore by deliberately violating.) Ken Arromdee 16:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
No, anyone may ignore the rules. That does not mean they can get away with doing whatever they like nor does it equate to a get out of jail free card nor exempt them from community sanctions if their actions are seen to be not in the interests of improving the encyclopedia. older ≠ wiser 16:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nowhere in the policy does it say you have to have consensus to IAR. Consensus is a rule. No one who ignores all rules in good faith should ever have to face sanctions for their behaviour, otherwise there is something seriously wrong with this policy.--Crossmr 16:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course -- but all too often individuals claim to be working in good faith, but in reality have a separate agenda. What I meant by saying they are not exempt from community sanctions are those cases where individuals know full well that their actions are controversial and attempt to hide behind IAR as a flimsy justification for their actions. older ≠ wiser 17:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Consistency is no virtue... but in any case, I don't understand how consensus is a "rule" exactly. WP:CON is about consensus building, which is rather different. Everyone is free to ignore all rules at any time; that is not a prescriptive statement in itself, it simply describes the nature of a wiki. After rules have boldly been ignored, the consensus of the community will judge whether or not a person's boldness was a) in good faith, and b) wise. If a & b, the changes will stand; if not b, the changes will be adjusted or reverted; if not a, the user will be subject to warning or sanction. -- Visviva 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should state it more clearly: This policy is not meant to apply to the community as a whole. The community can change its mind, but in that case the relevant policy is WP:CCC, not IAR. This page applies, fairly clearly, to the actions of individual editors (i.e. "you"). NPOV, like the other content policies, does not apply strictly to the actions of individual editors (see Wikipedia:Editing policy); it defines a community norm which articles are expected to meet. In that respect is, and should be, non-negotiable and inflexible. It is up to the community to decide whether an editor has or has not acted in good faith by failing to abide by NPOV, or any other policy. I don't see this as splitting hairs; I honestly do not see a contradiction here.-- Visviva 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Whether its a rule, policy, or "good idea", this policy addresses ignoring everything if you feel what you're doing is best for the encyclopedia. That can even mean consensus (which I've seen admins do). That can mean, NPOV, OR, V, etc. I've seen IAR used to ignore all of those in the name of improving the encyclopedia. I don't see the necessity for anyone to ignore all rules to improve the encyclopedia. Because if the encyclopedia can't be improved within the confines of the rules you either have a problem with the rules (which need to be changed), or what you're doing really isn't going to improve the encyclopedia. I'd like to see IAR go from Ignore all rules, to Improve all rules. Ignoring all rules inevitably ends in conflict, while improving the rules results in consensus building then making the improvements within the confines of those newly improved rules.--Crossmr 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
If a rule frequently needs to be ignored, then it should be changed. No doubt about that. For your other point, anyone is free to ignore consensus and face the consequences. The canonical example of this would be Ed Poor's infamous deletion of Votes for Deletion back in 2005; while I and a few others held that this was a brilliant example of using IAR to fix a serious problem in the encyclopedia, it was roundly rejected by the community. Ed's actions were greeted with general opprobrium, and I believe he was hit with various sanctions. This shows the usual pattern: 1. An editor ignores policy. 2. The community decides how to respond.
It seems to me -- and perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions -- that you're trying to make Wikipedia into a rule-governed system; but that is explicitly what Wikipedia is not. Normally, rules follow practice, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; decisions are not made by rules, but by people working together. When people fail to work together, that's a problem, but it's not a problem that any rule can solve. -- Visviva 04:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
And in our case, all of our rules have come about by consensus building. The community has already decided that this is how we should act at this time. If someone feels a change is in order, its better to build a new consensus (rule) rather than to unilaterally decide you need to fly in the face of existing consensus to make an improvement. Reaching the consensus first is always the better idea. I can't imagine anything that is going on on Wikipedia that is so time sensitive that we can't build a little consensus first.--Crossmr 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Wiki growth is a constant dialectic between consensus and boldness. This rule-that-is-not helps ensure that that process remains alive. -- Visviva 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How about, instead, adding text to WP:NPOV saying that though it's absolute and non-negotiable, it may still be ignored by individual editors?

I find the current state of the rules to be absurd. Just because we can interpret the rules to be consistent or just because Wikipedia isn't supposed to be governed by rules is no excuse to have rules whose most straightforward reading is a contradiction. Even if rules don't cover everything, the rules that we do have shouldn't contradict. Ken Arromdee 16:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Absurdity is the spice of life. If this were widely being used and accepted as a basis for abusive, anti-wiki behavior, I could see your point. But as far as I can tell, this hasn't caused any serious problems in Wikipedia's first several years of life, and isn't causing any problems now. On the other hand, without it, I would imagine that WP:BB would quickly lose its meaning, and that wikilawyering would take hold even more forcefully than it has done already.
Back to the first point -- any rule may be ignored by any editor. WP:NPOV doesn't need to say that any more than any other page does. Such openness is, frankly, the whole point of a wiki, and a big part of why Wikipedia has been so unexpectedly successful. IAR's presence as a policy here only helps to ensure that we don't forget this, and that people won't follow their first instinct and treat Wikipedia like it was some kind of bureaucracy that has to have a rigidly consistent set of policies. ;-) -- Visviva 17:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Saying that Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy may be a good excuse for having rules that don't cover every situation. It isn't a good excuse for having rules that contradict. Ken Arromdee 22:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
But it is not really a contradiction. The actions of any individual ignoring NPOV will sooner or later get corrected or reversed by other editors (or at least that's the theory behind Wiki and having many editors participating). Their ignoring the rule (deliberately or otherwise) is irrelevant to the long-term goals of Wikipedia, in which NPOV is a cornerstone. And those individuals who deliberately persist in "ignoring" rules such as NPOV despite being informed of the importance will face community sanctions. I don't see the contradiction. older ≠ wiser 02:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
That's still "because you can interpret it in this very non-obvious way that doesn't contradict, there's no contradiction".
The *straightforward* reading of IAR is that ignoring any rule may be *acceptable*. Claiming that there's no contradiction because you can ignore NPOV, you'll just always be reversed, adheres to the literal wording of IAR but twists it into nonsense. It's like a store with a big sign saying "you can buy widgets for $5". By your reasoning, if the sign actually meant "you can buy widgets for $5 if you want to get arrested", it would be perfectly sensible. Ken Arromdee 18:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
And that is exactly the problem with this. No one should ever fear reprisal for following the rules. If you ignore WP:NPOV, Consensus, WP:V, WP:BLOCK, WP:3RR or WP:OR 10 chances out of 9 you're going to get reversed on it, and possibly get ripped on it or start a fight of some sort. If the straightforward literal translation leads to an issue, then it needs to be fixed. I don't see anything this "policy" does that "Be Bold" and "Consensus" don't already achieve. Besides the potential for headaches.--Crossmr 18:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
? How does this policy threaten anyone with reprisal for following the rules? -- Visviva 07:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Because, this clearly says if you want to do something YOU believe will improve wikipedia and a rule prevents you, go ahead and do it. Yet if you do it, and consensus (a rule) is against you, you could face reprisal for doing it. There is no other rule I know which following it leaves you open to possible persecution for editing within its confines.--Crossmr 14:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd say the straightforward reading is correct. For you, the editor, to ignore any rule may be acceptable. Then again, it may not. Consensus will be the judge. That doesn't -- or certainly shouldn't -- contradict anything else in our ridiculously overgrown set of policies. -- Visviva 07:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
But that already contradicts. "It may or it may not" be acceptable depending on consensus, contradicts a rule which says that it's always unacceptable and consensus is not considered. Ken Arromdee 16:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I feel oddly like I'm repeating myself, but there is nothing in WP:NPOV which says it cannot be ignored by individual editors; it does say that it cannot be revised or changed through consensus. NPOV binds the community to respect it. To put it another way, it restricts the scope of WP:CON, not WP:IAR. Even actions which are notionally based on NPOV must stand or fall on their merits. -- Visviva 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Would you want to be running around proving consensus every time you told someone something? Our rules and policies basically are an "official" record of previously accepted consensus. Every time someone came around and called me a name, I would not have to have a debate on whether or not that was acceptable. If we're saying Consensus rules all then IAR does not. IAR is written in such a way to make the reader think it does rule all though. Hence why I think it should be changed from Ignore all rules to Improve all rules. Rules are just consensus, and in the spirit of IAR I should be well within my rights to move the page to Wikipedia:Improve all rules but wouldn't that create a bit of a catch 22?--Crossmr 16:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course you're within your "rights" to do so, and I would be within my "rights" to revert the move. But most rightly of all, we would (I trust) both be warned and then blocked for engaging in a lame and unproductive edit war.  ;-) -- Visviva 05:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
But that illustrates a larger issue of consistency. Consistency is very crucial to being "newbie" friendly. New users who come here and find a dichotomy in the rules often become confused on how to act, and what they should do, and it makes the initial experience unpleasant. I think we can all recognize the need to keep a record of previous consensus in rule or policy format, but ensuring those are all uniform and consistent leaves users much less susceptible to making a mistake. What we get from WP:POINT and WP:CON is that consensus really should rule all. No matter what. With that being the case, should anyone ever need to IAR? No. they should only ever seek consensus, and once its achieved make their desired change. I still don't see the need for this concept to be here, let alone be an official policy which can be misleading to the unexperienced editor.--Crossmr 08:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Who says editing within the confines of the rules doesn't leave you open to reprisals? See WP:POINT, which can be viewed as a special case of the converse to IAR: if the rules don't forbid you from harming Wikipedia, don't do it anyway. The current version of WP:POINT also has another relevant observation: "[Wikipedia] is inconsistent, and it tolerates things it does not condone. These are arguably not defects." 192.75.48.150 18:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that's how I've always read this part of Wikipedia policy: rules are neither necessary (IAR) nor sufficient (POINT) to justify any action. Any action that is found to be injurious to the project may be subject to reversion, and perhaps to additional remedies. Everything, including the rules, is secondary to our core mission: to build a free and open encyclopedia. -- Visviva 05:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/g/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EIgnore_all_rules_8b05.html"