Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the page for discussion on the Ignore All Rules policy.

Policy • Talk • Workshop • WIARM • UIAR • Versions
Shortcut:
WT:IAR
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.
Consensus The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
v • e


Archive
Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12
Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Archive 16
Straw poll (permanently active)
This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived.
About archives • Edit this box
  • Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.


Contents


[edit] Ignoring the rules v. Ignoring a rule

I think applying this policy falls under two categories:

  • A newbie doesn't understand Wikipedia policy. Consequently, they just do what they see as best.
  • A user thinks that their actions serve to better Wikipedia, and are better than folllowing policy.

The first one should obviously be allowed. The second raises interesting issues. I suggest that, in order to ignore a rule, you must first understand it (not including the former case, in which, paradoxially, if you don't understand a rule, you may ignore it). The second circumstance is defined by its intent: A user, knowing full well what the position of policy is on a matter, deliberately and wilfully flies in its face. This is the sort of thing that should only ever, ever be done with a good reason, and the user ought to understand the policy that they are ignoring. This ties in closely with "The spirit of the law trumps the letter of the law." If the user understands the rationale for the rule, sees that the rationale is nonsensical in a particular case not foreseen by the rule, and therefore disregards the rule, no harm is done, and we all benefit. However, if the user simply doesn't agree with the policy, then the user can't ignore it — this would be against the consensus.

So, to summarise, in cases where a user deliberately ignores a particular rule (as opposed to ignoring "the rules" as a whole), the user ought to understand the rule, and have a clear argument establishing that the circumstances are unusual enough to not have been foreseen by the consensus used to form the rule, and that the user's proposed action follows the spirit of the law, if not the letter, and improves Wikipedia as a whole.

Thoughts? — Werdna talk 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Rules for "Ignore All Rules"? Pfffffffft. MessedRocker (talk) 15:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


It's already one of the bullet points at WP:WIARM:

"Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.

It's my favorite hobby horse. :-)
In fact, this rule doesn't just apply to ignoring a rule, it applies to following a rule too (following a rule while you know that it harms wikipedia is not a good idea) , and (conceivably) to anything else in between. :-P
Since we're talking hobby horses... I'll trot mine out a bit further; there's actually 4 questions you need to answer:
  • You
    • Why did you do it?
    • What would convince you to change your mind and revert yourself?
  • Community (and thus consensus)
    • Why do you think the community will support your action? we're assuming that you won't go against consensus and common sense all at once. Even if common sense didn't have consensus before, it might have consensus once you explain it :-)
    • What would convince the community to change its mind and revert you?
You don't need to answer all these questions publicly for each action you take, but you should have answered them all for yourself before you hit submit. And... due to the way wikipedia works (there's no explicit policy) effectively anyone from the community can demand an answer to any of the above questions at any time, and if you don't successfully answer, the situation might escalate. reason: answering allows you to meatball:LimitScope and can be used as a first step towards building consensus, not answering forces the other party to meatball:ExpandScope to try and get their answers elsewhere in an attempt to force you to at least come to some settlement.
--Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC) I've also talked about this in wikipedia lecture #2, in case you'd like to read more details about this opinion
I agree with Werdna here. The second case especially seems to rhyme well with my theme that WP:UIAR should indicate that the onus is on the rule-breaker to reasonably demonstrate the necessity of their action as a means toward preserving or improving the encyclopedia. I also still think none of that explication should be on the IAR page itself. Franamax (talk) 08:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does that not indicate the onus on the rule breaker to be maintaining or improving Wikipedia? (1 == 2)Until 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
How could anyone argue that the onus isn't on each person, to account for their own actions? What suggests that it would somehow be elsewhere? -GTBacchus(talk) 14:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
The two are the same. Ignore All Rules is based on wiki process as self-corrective and is a corollary of Being Bold . You can attempt to do whatever, but you may get reverted or overturned or worse. This only becomes a problem when people think IAR is a flash demonstration of their wikigod skills, and reversion of it therefore an outrageous attack on their judgment or an attempt to destroooooy them. 86.44.17.45 (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, it's interesting to come back a few months after I leave Wikipedia and poke around the old discussion haunts.
And good to know that even the reverters to the simplest IAR are actually making it clear that almost all of them agree with the interpretations I do. During my era of discussion, it was not so clear. So score one for change. --72.1.156.154 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A rule "established by the community"

I tossed it in. [1] What do you think? ☯  Zenwhat (talk)

Rules are rules, you don't need to clarify it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
A rule not established by the community (or more specifically, not embraced by it) should not only be ignored, but disregarded altogether. But in general, that a rule may or may not have been established by the community is irrelevant: if it prevents improvement, ignore it.--Father Goose (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it is not ignore rules established by the community, it is ignore all rules. I really think people don't get that "all" part. 1 != 2 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
[2] Over fourteen days between edits, almost certainly a record for this talk page. --NewbyG (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That sounds good, but there's one thing.

IP blocking is a 'rule' that prevents you from improving Wikipedia. You can't really ignore it.

Otherwise... --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

When ip's are blocked its almost always because of vandalism. And vandalism does not improve the pedia in any way, shape or form. But that doesn't stop the ip's though. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 23:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure you could ignore it, you could go for a walk or play a game of chess. 1 != 2 18:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

That's very observant. :-) The "rules" mentioned IAR are the rules found in the project namespace (Wikipedia:xxxxxxx). There are also a number of rules enforced by software. People tend to forget those software-enforced-rules when they argue that "IAR would turn wikipedia into an anarchy" :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The twelve words are -- If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

  • If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

10 May 2008

/Archive 15

I predict that the 12 words will remain on the project page, for the next two months at least. --NewbyG (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

You got money riding on it or something?--Father Goose (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Time passes slowly, waiting for nothing to happen. --NewbyG (talk) 22:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Why not just fully protect the page? It's obviously not undergoing (or going to undergo) any kind of maintenance (be it miniscule or extensive), and most edits made to it are reverted fairly quickly.--Koji†Dude (C) 22:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its eligible for protection, for the same reason you've stated. Numerous users and admins watch this page. I'm not noticing any recent vandalism or edit warring (Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism). SynergeticMaggot (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because there has not been a consensus to change it in a while does not mean there will never be. I don't think we need to protect unless there are those who are actively seeking to edit war. 1 != 2 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Standards? On this page?

I thought I'd try out my genial idea, that Category:Wikipedia official policy should have certain standards, by visiting this page. I am working toward several presentation aspects of all official policy pages becoming standardized, just as other noncontroversial aspects like markup and organization are standard. What I have in mind right now is:

  • Use the standard {{policy}} template, with new enhancements, to provide automatic categorization and a standard message.
  • Demote the two statements currently in the notice box into "see also"s as follows:
  • Add a paraphrase of Jimbo back into the notice box. Among the other ironies of this page is that editors have favored Jimbo's edit summary as content for the notice box while completely, um, ignoring what Jimbo put in the notice box himself. With the boilerplate, the notice would read:
    • This page documents an official English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page. This page is fundamental to the working of Wikipedia: please pause to consider its long tradition and deep and subtle meaning.
  • Add a nutshell that contains the exact same twelve words as the policy. This will also quell some rumblings I recall reading here at one point that the twelve words are not given enough prominence.

I hope consensus for these changes, or at least for trying them, will not be problematic. If there are concerns, please let me know how my goal of standardizing policy templates and categories should transpire. I believe all policies should be required to use the same policy template and should have a standard nutshell text box for quoting on other pages; I hope to see automated quoting in the future as well. I would appreciate it if competing proposals addressed these concerns. JJB 10:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add a nutshell that contains the exact same twelve words as the policy? Ugh. —David Levy 11:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, except no nutshell is needed, I think there is a general agreement about that. I fully agree that like every other policy it should say "When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. If in doubt, consider discussing changes on the talk page", not sure who removed it, probably someone who did not have consensus. 1 != 2 13:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with standard policy tag, but I see no need to for the ugly bloat that the nonstandard addition (This page is fundamental to the working of Wikipedia: please pause to consider its long tradition and deep and subtle meaning.) brings. We used similar text only as an alternative to the standard text, so I don't know what purpose it's supposed to serve now.
Oh, and the colon should be a semicolon. —David Levy 16:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for working on the template David. Actually, the point of the nonstandard addition is that it's nonstandard and thus teaching by example. I think that's why Jimbo put it there in the first place. The same is true for a redundant nutshell: it's one place where redundancy really would make a point. It's also very koanic. JJB 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I like the new changes, I can take or leave "This page is fundamental to the working of Wikipedia: please pause to consider its long tradition and deep and subtle meaning". I think a repetitive nutshell is counter productive. If anything the nutshell should be "Use your brain", but I don't think we need one at all. 1 != 2 17:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, the added text doesn't contradict any rule that I'm aware of, so it isn't an application/demonstration of this policy. Secondly, even if it did contradict a rule, it's my opinion that it doesn't improve the page (and therefore still is not an application/demonstration of this policy).
The nutshell idea seems bizarre and likely to cause confusion. —David Levy 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Standards? On this page? - Standardising policy tags sounds like a good idea. --
And I generally like the new changes, though I am a bit yes-and-no with "This page is fundamental to the working of Wikipedia: please pause to consider its long tradition and deep and subtle meaning". Are those words directly from User:Jimbo or something perhaps? --
I would say that a repetitive nutshell is counter productive. --
Standards? On this page? Happy to participate in further discussion. --NewbyG (talk) 23:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of "other versions", it seems to be a collection of things that did not gain consensus. 1 != 2 00:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)