Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Short Version

There is a strong contingent who's opinion about this page can be boiled down to "I like the short version of WP:IAR as it exists now and any longer version is wrong". I respect your opinion, but as you can see here, it is already well represented. Repeating that same opinion different ways adds nothing to this discussion. Those who are working on this page are doing so, in order to not disrupt the main IAR page with their brainstorming. Please show them the same courtesy. -- Isogolem 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a sweet thought, but the way these things tend to actually work out is that objectors are told "well you should have participated." So, er, too bad - David Gerard 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. Hmmm... Okay. ... ... Erm... Well, then, I guess... Nope, I'm stumped.  :) The point of a brainstorm is to come up with a pile of new ideas, then sift them, and bring back a few ideas for wider discussion. It seems obvious (to idealistic old me) that the existing page would be one of the options. "Which do you most like: a, b, c, d, or e - none of the above, leave it as it is." Oh, well. -- Isogolem 23:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

As revisions go, not a terrible one, but let's ask ourselves - is "misuse" of this rule really a sizable problem? Is it worth wading into the horrible mess of policy-crafting to correct? Do we really think that those too clueless to use the rule properly are going to learn if we explain it better? Phil Sandifer 23:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Further, if you look at the history of this page. Attempts to "improve" it, have mostly resulted in new pages, not in additions to this page. There is a large contingent of the "keep it short and sweet" crowd on this one. Which at this point I've joined, mostly out of respect for the dead. -- Isogolem 23:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Short and sweet is only going to further controversy. I understand the desire for it to read like "constiutionalism" or like a biblical ten commandment, but that only works if everyone agrees with it and understand the meaning/spirit behind it. Significant editorial factions at wikipedia do nto agree with IAR and/or understand the meaning behind it existing, therefore it needs clarification. Electrawn
To that end, edit away. Electrawn 01:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with some discussion of the point, so long as the "nutshell" text remains in place, since that's ultimately the bottom line. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Dont't worry, if this page becomes complicated and gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, just ignore it. 24.20.69.240 09:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
WP:IAR may sound catchy and exciting in its current short form, but for an official policy, it's also far more deeply misleading than "deep and subtle in meaning" about the nature of Wikipedia and the importance of other core policies such as WP:V and WP:NOT, not to mention the real "bottom line" - WP:OFFICE. The policy in its curent form also has vague respect for high quality standards on Wikipedia. People like the short form of [[WP:IAR}] because they think its a fun slogan, but this is less than practical and is out-of-line with other policies Bwithh 20:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't patronise supporters of the short form. It has nothing to do with being a 'fun slogan', and everything to do with a fundamental tenet of Wikipedia. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 09:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm intrigued and really curious - what exactly are the deep and subtle meanings of WP:IAR? And why can't they be expressed clearly in longer form? Not expanding on the policy in that way, and leaving it like a chinese fortune cookie message instead, is what makes it especially attract opposition. If it boils down to "Don't work-to-rule" and "don't be overly bureaucratic" - that's of practical use but not especially deep and subtle in meaning at all and could be laid out straightforwardly and explicitly (and is covered elsewhere - and more clearly - in policy anyway). Bwithh 15:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What "controversy"? What "significant editorial factions"? I have a few guesses as to what factions you might be worried about, but whichever it is, please keep things in perspective. 72.137.20.109 02:59, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversy: Once again refer to the history of the WP:IAR or look at the talk page. The controversy, until Jimbo stepped in, might be boiled down to "WTFITS? We have enough problems with vandals, cranks, and trolls without having a policy that they can stand use to support their disruptions. What the hell does it really mean anyway?" The page history and page spawns from it have been attempts to answer that. I think this effort might be a waste of time, but it can't hurt to look at it again with fresh eyes.
Well, no, I don't agree. There are actually several different threads of contention in there. Vandals and crackpots and trolls (oh my) is one of the less convincing objections, and in any case I fail to see how either proposal helps. 192.75.48.150 13:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Care to summarize the objection then? -- Isogolem 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
No, not me anyway. Though I am sympathetic to the idea of having a "history of IAR" somewhere, and I hope you don't mind that I have added a "nostalgia" reference right on the IAR page. There's Abuse By Cranks, as you say, but then there's Abuse By Admins. There's The Old Version Was Better, but then there's We've Outgrown This. I'm not saying that to summarize anything, just enough maybe to reflect upon the ramifications of a catch-all "let's clarify this" approach. This is a good case of There are Seven sides to every story. 192.75.48.150 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you sumarize while trying not to. :) ... I like the nostastalgia link, how would that contravene a "history of IAR" page/section? -- Isogolem 18:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relatives of IAR

Just to get a list of pages that most directly relate to IAR:

  • Add more as you find them

[edit] STOP!

I didn't even read this, and I'm a wikipedia fanatic. I read a few sentences and it just wiped off me, in contrast to the current IAR, which is concice and gets the point across. Really, this is just stupid. .* 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That's why we have the "nutshell" version up there. That contains the short/sweet version, while we now have room to elaborate. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing to elaborate on. --PopUpPirate 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Background is required

I don't have a strong feeling about the wording of the policy itself, but I think it is very important that the page explains the reason for the policy. To simply state that it has a 'deep, subtle meaning' is not good enough. That 'deep, subtle meaning' should be explained in a way that becomes 'clear and meaningful'. Similarly it is no good just saying that the rule has a 'long tradition'. Instead explain the history and reasons for the rule. I don't think it's good enough for one of our core rules to be a simple bald statement with no explanation of why it is a rule and why it is important. --HappyDog 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Deep and subtle meaning" was a bit cryptic, wasn't it. 192.75.48.150 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I like this suggestion. There are plentiful explanations of the history and significance of IAR on certain pages in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, such as Wikipedia talk:Process is important. Maybe some of those could be collected and added to the page, maybe in one of those show/hide navboxes or something, to keep people happy who like for the page to be short and sweet. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Might as well give up on proposal one

Proposal one is clearly completely different from, and in opposition to, what IAR has always meant. Given that Jimbo himself has stepped in and declared IAR to be official policy, attempting to undo it now is simply not going to happen. I suggest removing it from the brainstorming article, it is pointless having it there. --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean the merge or the new text? Please refactor this section as needed. -- Isogolem 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible justification for leaving IAR brief

Ignore All Rules is a policy intended for those who have the intelligence and sophistication to understand it, and the common sense and overall constructive nature to use it properly. Therefore, it is not necessary to write a long essay to explain it, since those who need it explained to them in detail are those who shouldn't be invoking it anyway. The current brief form of the policy will, of course, be invoked by vandals or those who don't understand the value of important wikipedia policies like NPOV and WP:V and such. What of it? The rest of us will ignore their attempt to justify what they're doing with IAR and not allow whatever destructive behaviour they're trying to engage in. --Xyzzyplugh 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ignore All Rules is a policy intended for those who have the intelligence and sophistication to understand it" - this is nonsense. How can one of the 'fundamental' rules of Wikipedia be something intended only for the 'elite'? No wait, I get it - you mean 'Ignore all rules, but only if you understand all the rules...'. I think it's a GOOD THING that we have rules that only apply to the highest common denominator - that way we can beat up the newbies good and proper! --HappyDog 23:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC) sorry about the excess sarcasm, but really, this is too much!
Yes, you have a point. However, are there really likely to be any situations where a new editor Ignores All Rules and gets away with it? I mean sure, they can post POV text, add spam links to articles, write articles about their dog or their garage band, but others will revert or delete whatever they wrote. It seems to me that successful IARing is generally ignoring of our more obscure rules which a new editor wouldn't yet be coming into contact with. Can you think of some likely examples of how a newbie would end up ignoring rules successfully? --Xyzzyplugh 21:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Not once they've been noticed, no. However that is not my point. The important thing is that people who start getting interested a bit more deeply in Wikipedia and begin exploring the rules are able to understand what the rules actually mean. My issue here is not in "people break the rules because they don't understand them", but that "people are turned away from the project because they don't understand the rules". --HappyDog 23:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge into (and promote) WP:SENSE

While not perfect, WP:SENSE is much more explicit and straightforward - it should be expanded too however, especially to include a modified version of Wikipedia:There's no common sense, and the text from this brainstorming page. - User:Bwithh

In a word, no. I am not in favor of replacing IAR with anything, and especially not a non-policy essay. The two appear to be related, but that's as far as it should go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that's your opinion (though I don't understand your logic of "non policy essays can never be policies" - isn't this the kind of excessively rigid thinking that WP:IAR is supposed to be against?. This page is supposed to be a discussion/brainstorming page about these proposals and new ones - although some people seem to think that any discussion about reforming WP:IAR should be just ignored or stopped (again, rigid thinking which WP:IAR and their supporters are supposed to be against) Bwithh 20:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh... that's really not what he said. Schuminweb said "I'm not in favor of replacing IAR with anything, especially not a non-policy essay." That's not the same as "non policy essays can never be policies" at all. I suspect you're equating policy with written policy - they're not the same. Policy is what it is, and writing things down and putting tags on and off of pages doesn't change that. If you manage to write an essay that accurately expresses something that is, in fact, policy, then that essay will eventually get recognized as policy and tagged as such. That doesn't mean policy has changed. IAR is policy, and always has been. If the page is deleted, that will remain true. The idea that it could be "replaced" is based on a misunderstanding. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree wih your conceptualization of this issue and your suggestion that your view of matters is an obvious or fundamental one. You say: "Policy is what it is, and writing things down and putting tags on and off of pages doesn't change that." - I think that's an awfully conservative and contradictory way of thinking about a community which is supposed to be based on open and transparent continuous discussion through a text medium. Bwithh 00:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Bwithh, I either don't understand you, or I disagree. For one thing, I don't suggest that this view of policy is obvious - if I implied that, I apologize. I also don't see the contradiction between open and transparent communication through a text medium on on hand, and on the other hand the idea that our written policies and guidelines are an approximation of some ideal policies and guidelines that we're constantly striving to describe better and better. Those two views dovetail nicely, as far as I can see.
My point is that our policy is actually very very simple. It's nothing more than: (a)use common sense, and (b)courtesy, to (c)write a free neutral encyclopedia (d)on a wiki. That's always the policy, and everything else is just us doing a better or worse job of unpacking that one sentence. WP:IAR follows mostly from (a) and (d). Whether we have a page up explaining how it follows, and however well or poorly written it is, our policy is still to use common sense and courtesy to write a free neutral encyclopedia on a wiki. You're correct in the section below, that the idea that "use common sense" means "cut bureaucratic corners where possible" is kind of a techno-libertarian ideal, and that's precisely what we're saying has worked so far, and continues to work for the most part, but it does make it difficult when people fundamentally disagree with that approach, and try to overlay a different philosophy on the project. Me, I just sort of trust the people with more experience on wikis about how wikis work best, and I try to be real open to the idea that we're working within a radically new model here, and that a lot of my expectations about social structures may not apply. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing stopping anyone who wishes from promoting WP:SENSE now, right? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The suggested merge has been tried before, but then so has everything else.  :) -- Isogolem 16:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm in favor of adding this line from WP:SENSE into WP:IAR - "Invoking the principle of "Ignore all rules" on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia." Possibly also the line that comes after it as well: "A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all," though I don't think that one is as important. I also think that giving specific suggestions for how to safely ignore a rule (e.g. write a good edit summary or note on the talk page acknowledging that you ignored a rule and explaining your reasoning for why you did what you did) would be good. I agree that the policy in a nutshell line is fine, but, as is, it might confuse new editors. I have not seen cases of malicious WP:IAR abuse so far, but I think it's only fair to give just a bit more clarification for someone who's just poking around. (Wouldn't want a perception of anarchy to scare someone away. Wait until they're already hooked and let them see it for themselves.) --JaimeLesMaths 06:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irony

Y'all do realize that you're taking the policy that says we can ignore overwrought and kludgy process in favor of making sense, and trying to add a bunch of overwrought and kludgy process to it, right? Phil Sandifer 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the last sentence is adding extra process:
Use of this policy should be initiated by a group of editors, 
for when the policy is invoked by a single editor, it will usually 
be seen as a violation of WP:POINT. However, in the spirit of 
Wikipedia, NPOV and consensus ultimately rule the day.
That should probably be removed. But the basic tenet is valid - a policy that simply states 'ignore all rules' without any background, reason or history is just asking for trouble. --HappyDog 23:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: Phil Sandifier's comment, besides pointing out that's just repeating the irony already in the short version of maxim/slogan/motto/shibboleth, I'd also say that there's a tendency in the Wikipedia context to caricature process, rules, codification etc. as fundamentally negative and "overwrought" etc. This is part of the ideological heritage of Wikipedia's founders i.e. techno-libertarianism - and I think the short version of WP:IAR is a celebration of this ideology rather than the presentation of any practical, rational policy. Bwithh 01:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The truth is that process is always a bad thing: in an ideal world, we'd be able to get a top-class encyclopaedia by just giving people the Wiki and letting them get on with it. Of course, what we're in is far from an ideal world, and therefore we need process to give the project shape and definition, but that doesn't make it any less of a bad thing in the absolute sense: a necessary evil, if you like. The reason WP_IAR is both practical and rational is because it shows that writing the encyclopaedia is the important thing here, not getting bogged down in following rules for the sake of it. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Not true. Without process there can be no structure. A simple example - two people working on a filing system - one person puts the files they are working on in alphabetical order, the other puts their files in date order. They system is totally useless to both people. We are developing something a lot more complicated than a filing system here, with a lot more than two people involved in the project. Process, at some level, is therefore vital. The thing that is always a bad thing is unecessary process. Do not get the two confused. --HappyDog 14:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
So in what you're saying is that when something becomes more of a "formality", it's time to ditch it? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, then yes. Any 'rule', or indeed any 'guideline', needs to have some kind of historical context, i.e. some reason for it's existence. If the reason for introducing the rule no longer exists applies then the rule becomes redundant. However, if no-one knows why the rule was introduced then it can end up persisting as a rule even though it now gets in the way. For example some of the biblical rules about what you can and can't eat, stem from the problems of storing meat in a hot country without any refrigeration. In the modern world the problem that these rules were trying to avoid has been removed, but because the reason for the rules is not given, many devout people still follow them. OK - I've probably opened a horrible theological can of worms with that example, but I hope you get my point...
Without any context the rule loses its authority and purpose. Process is important(tm), but there are three very important caveats to that statement: (1) it should not be overly prescriptive (2) it should be flexible and (3) the 'problem' that the rule attempts to avoid should be well defined. --HappyDog 01:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempted Reversal of IAR?

"Use of this policy should be initiated by a group of editors, for when the policy is invoked by a single editor, it will usually be seen as a violation of WP:POINT". This is a complete reversal of what IAR has always meant, and it's a stealth attempt to try to remove the policy, and considering that Jimbo just declared IAR as being official policy a month ago, it's doomed to failure. Rewriting IAR to give an explanation of the policy might be reasonable, rewriting it to reverse its meaning is certainly not. --Xyzzyplugh 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How about now? -- Isogolem 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of flow/point

The entire current brainstorming few paragraphs does not have a flow to it. It starts off trying to describe Nirvana/Heaven... etc... Then it suddenly jerks to the fact that rules take ages to learn, then it goes to the fact that we proclaim not to be a bureaucracy, even given the number of policy pages and stuff we have.

Seriously though, a huge explanation is not what is required on a page like this. A person who is nervous and feeling like not editing wikipedia does not need a rant, they need a short easy to understand piece of ecouragement. Wikipedia is a community as an ends to building the best encyclopedia ever, its that simple. A hiccup along the way because this policy may get abused by an experienced vandal means nothing at all. Just leave it the way it is and direct serial vandals to WP:DICK or WP:ENC instead. This pages purpose is utterly destroyed by too many words. Ansell 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

So, aside from not liking the current version, you really don't like the idea of a longer version of IAR. Okay. -- Isogolem 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't. Sorry for taking so long to get to the point! :) Ansell 09:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The problem with this policy is that the idea of what it means to "improve" Wikipedia is inherently subjective. We create and maintain rules because people can and do intelligently disagree about things, and we need a way of resolving those disagreements. In other words, this policy is fine -- except in the abscence of concensus. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vectro (talk • contribs) .

(Note: This message was originally posted to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC))

So, suggestions on what to say instead? -- Isogolem 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Something like "If there is a consensus that a rule is inhibiting the encyclopedia, ignore it." Short and to the point is fine, but anything that doesn't involve consensus leaves too many holes to wriggle through. Such as declaring consensus itself inhibitory. -Amarkov babble 04:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Inhibiting" doesn't seem any clearer to me... -- Isogolem 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Be constructive

Okay, you don't have to like the idea of changing IAR, but that is what this page is about. If you're going to edit, please make a good faith effort to be constructive, both in discussion and on the brainstorming page itself. This kind of behavior is not apppropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Isogolem (talk • contribs) 02:25, October 2, 2006 (UTC).

Agreed. The spirit of a "brainstorm" pretty much involves generating new ideas, and throwing a lot of stuff on the table, without taking anything off the table, or criticizing ideas that others are throwing out. That comes later. A brainstorm is for generating ideas that may or may not lead anywhere; after the brainstorm is when you trim the list down. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
That was my brainstorm of it, that's all. It was a good faith effort to be constructive, as such it was imo appropriate. Thanks! --PopUpPirate 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Er, wtf.

The rule is simple. It is misused by idiots just as "anyone can edit" is misused by spammers and marketers. This is like changing the byline to "Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that almost anyone can edit most of the time, except a small percentage of pages, and for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia, which promotional pieces and copyright violations, to name two possible problematic forms of contribution in a by no means comprehensive list ..." etc., etc. That is: the detail is not appropriate for it.

You can't make or bend rules to stop stupidity or malice. The stupid won't understand and the malicious won't care. And you'll hamper clueful editors of good will in the process.

The real reason people want to turn IAR into a novel-length list of exceptions is that they cough up a hairball at the idea that process is less important than good sense and that process violation is allowed. I must say "too bad." Jimbo and the ArbCom appear to agree.

Thus, I have added to the page that this long added piece should go to a new page: Commentary on Ignore all rules - David Gerard 10:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

N.B. we already have Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules, which is where much of the instruction creep that would have been directed onto WP:IAR has been successfully diverted in the past. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Having a nutshell version that is short and simple is fine. But do you see ANY other policies that ARE the nutshell version? No, because people realize that one sentence is not enough to explain what the policy does or does not mean. A byline, by it's nature, must be short, or it doesn't work. An entire policy should not be kept simple just because it sounds cool that way. -Amarkov babble 13:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Your suggestion that those of us who advocate a simple IAR do so because it 'sounds cool' is deeply patronising. IAR should be kept simple because it is simple. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 13:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
David, I removed the box suggesting move. As noted, we already have SOHTIAR. While your point about a longer version of IAR is valid, it is extremely well represented already in the existing policy. Should this change ever make it out of brainstorming, your opinion will likely be in the majority. In the meanwhile, why not let people take swing at this? What can it hurt? -- Isogolem 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Nick, part of the issue that is occuring is those attempting this longer version are feeling attacked by the "short" crowd. They moved their discussion off to a nice quiet corner and began talking and in run what looks like a bunch of screaming barbarians saying, "How can you even discuss changing what is already perfect?" Perhaps they're feeling a bit defensive with good reason? By the way, your first comment in this thread implies that any attempt to lengthen IAR is "instruction creep" is also patronizing. Perhaps Amarkov was just handing back what was given. I agree, it is a simple rule, but then again so is "No original research" and that policy goes on for a while. Again, what is the problem with discussing some longer versions? -- Isogolem 23:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm a little at a loss as to how you're able to interpret something like David's well-reasoned comments above as an attack by a 'screaming barbarian'. My comment implied nothing other than what it says: that previous attempts to extend IAR with instruction creep have been successfully deflected to another place. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The policy isn't as simple as you make it out to be, or at least it shouldn't be. What about people who honestly think it improves encyclopedic coverage to remove things they disagree with? What about people who honestly think ignoring consensus policies will make it better? They obviously should have no right to do either of those things, but as it is written now, those are perfectly valid interpretations. I mean, you could just write WP:NPOV as "Maintain a neutral point of view in all articles." That's the entire essence of the policy. In fact, there's even LESS of a reason not to write it like that, since there aren't exceptions to it, other than talk pages and the like. So why then should every policy not be reduced to their simple nutshell versions? -Amarkov babble 23:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, firstly 'people who honestly think it improves encyclopedic coverage to remove things they disagree with' would probably remove things they disagree with whether IAR existed or not. You can't win with some people.
Secondly, so what if they do? This is a wiki and 99% of the things you can do on it can trivially be undone by someone else. Someone who 'ignores all rules' to do something dumb is not going to bring about the end of civilisation as we know it: they're just going to get their actions reverted, often within seconds or minutes.
Probably the most spectacular instance of someone doing something dumb was when Ed Poor 'ignored all rules' and deleted AfD (or VfD, as it was then). AfD has an awfully long history, and the resulting strain on the database essentially locked the Wiki from editing for a few minutes. So this, the most egregious example of what some people would call 'IAR abuse', simply caused the Wiki to be uneditable for a matter of minutes. 90% of Wikipedians and 99.9...% of Wikipedia users probably never noticed that this even happened.
To summarise, for clarity: the much-vaunted 'abuse of IAR' doesn't actually happen all that often. Most instances of it happening would happen whether IAR existed or not. And when it does happen it isn't such a big deal that it's worth getting all that excited over. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it isn't a huge deal, because abuse can just be reverted. But the only reason being given for not including the information given in other policy articles is "but IAR is short, we can't make it un-short!" That is really not a good enough reason. -Amarkov babble 01:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
That is certainly not the only reason. Could you perhaps try to read the talk pages fully before incorrectly summarising other people's arguments? The primary reason is that it simply isn't necessary for IAR to be a lengthy policy. The secondary reason is, as has been expressed repeatedly on Wikipedia_talk:Ignore all rules, that attempts have been made in the past, in all good faith, to expand IAR as a policy: all that happens is the page keeps on getting longer and longer as people add examples, exceptions, rules and corollaries until the actual principle of IAR becomes buried under the sheer weight of the extra instructions piled upon it. It was in response to just such a situation that Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules was created to avoid complicating WP:IAR itself. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
back
to
the
left
margin

As far as I am concerned, the problem has never been 'the policy is open to abuse, so let's make it more watertight'. As you say, changing the policy won't stop abuse, and anyway abuse is easy to fix. The change that I want to see is a little (not a lot) of explanation and a little (not a lot) of history. I object to the fact that the rule is introduced as having a "deep and subtle meaning" and then no effort is made to explain that. That is the equivalent to saying "this rule is clever and you probably don't understand it fully, but we're not going to explain, and you're not allowed to try either". --HappyDog 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's my point, too. Yes, the policy is simple. But so are many others. They still have explanations, history, and the like. -Amarkov babble 23:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I wouldn't be opposed to removing the 'deep and subtle meaning' sentence. IAR doesn't have a deep and subtle meaning: it means exactly what it says. What it does have are deep and subtle implications about the way Wikipedia works as an enterprise: it may be worth stating this instead. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 23:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"Deep and subtle meaning" is the wording selected by Jimbo. Perhaps we need to ask for clarification on what he means? SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PRO

There are suggested reasons why IAR is policy there. Not that I'm suggesting importing them to this page - David Gerard 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Added to the "relatives" section above. -- Isogolem 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The problem I see with this discussion.

The argument put forth by people who disagree with changing the policy isn't usually "I think these changes are counterproductive/unneeded, and here is why." It's "These changes are bad, by the very nature of being changes. God Jimmy Wales has supported the policy in its simple form, therefore it may not be complicated in any way, because it is a divine decree well-thought out statement, which we should venerate respect." Apart from using Jimbo's opinion as law (no disrespect to him, but he isn't God), which isn't entirely the focus, the argument is assuming that we already see the virtue in keeping the policy short over anything else. We don't. Please explain why it should remain simple, instead of simply rephrasing the assertion as "m:Instruction creep!!!" -Amarkov babble 03:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

-Partial agree: for example Larry Sanger was against the policy.
-Partial disagree: As the policy is opposed to Wikilawyering/instruction creep, and lengthening it is a kind of instruction creep, it would cut its own fingers to make it much longer. The phrasing can be improved in quality instead of quantity, see for an example the proposal below. Harald88 15:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing, because while we definitely need to keep the short version in there (which this does), it also does deserve some explanation for those who can't all grasp its deep and subtle meaning. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Such exegesis can usefully be directed to Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I am fed up of explaining why keeping IAR short has proven to be a good idea. Please read the archives of Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules and this page, where you'll find I've given a detailed explanation on about three separate occasions, at least once directly in reply to this question from you. Going over this again and again is rapidly becoming very, very tiresome. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 12:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You are one of the people who doesn't fit in with what I said. Thus the "usually". But I don't really understand why you think having it get correlaries and such piled up on it is a BAD thing. WP:NOR is buried in those, but it doesn't matter. Because someone who doesn't care about them can read the nutshell version at the top. Why is it so important that the nutshell version be the entire extent of the policy? -Amarkov babble 14:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal based on Poll page

See Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Straw_poll#Neutral. Proposal that I support:

Ignore A Rule
Rules can't anticipate every possibility. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore it, but be prepared to explain why. If you feel that it is likely to be ignored again for the same reason, work to change the rule.

Harald88 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That is a good idea. I support it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Dead Dead

There have been no siginificant revisions to this "brainstorming" page in over a month. If you support this, speak up, make some attempts at revsions or it goes on the trash heap. -- Isogolem 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please look one line up. Harald88 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/g/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EIgnore_all_rules_Brainstorming_d5e3.html"