Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Archives
Straw poll 2002 – November 2005 November 2005 – January 2006 January 2006 – August 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 - February 2007 February 2007 - April 2007 April 2007 - May 2007 May-June 2007 June-July 2007

Re-revised wording

None of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines can ever account for all possibilities. If a scenario occurs where the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it is acceptable to ignore them and use your best judgment.

What this says about the rules

• Rules derive their power to compel from historical consensus. They are not set in stone, but are rather a reflection of the shared opinion of a great many editors.
• Rules are sometimes poor attempts to put complex thoughts into words. The wording of a rule is never important; rather, the spirit of a rule is what counts.
• Rules are never final, as they are derived from consensus, and consensus can change.
• Rules tend to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, and sometimes lag behind the practices they describe. Follow consensus, not policy.
• Rules should be subject to constant scrutiny. When consulting the rules, consider not only what the rule says, but whether it is a valid rule to begin with.
• Rules cannot be lawyered with. There are no "loopholes" or "technicalities", as the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.
• Rules should still be followed most of the time in most situations.

What this means for editors

• Over time, familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them. Read the talk pages about the rules: they often shed light on ideas in the rules that are contentious.
• Feel free to break the rules if you need to.
• Anytime you break the rules, explain to your fellow editors why doing so improves the encyclopedia.
• At the same time, listen to your fellow editors: if many people disagree with your actions, consider reverting them.
• You are still responsible for reasonably forseeable effects of your actions.
• Consider all issues on a case-by-case-basis.
• Participation in Wikipedia is not contingent upon knowledge of any rules. If someone unknowingly breaks a rule, politely point her to the appropriate rule pages, but still consider that her judgment may be correct.

---

Discussion of the above

The improved & most recent version of this, "Extended version", is at: old revision of page. —WikiLen 20:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dunno who wrote all that above, and not meaning to sound disrespectful, but I got bored by line two and expect most other editors would, too. All I need to know is that if I want to or need to, I can ignore all the rules if I like. Any other gubbins in there is of no consequence to me or many others. --PopUpPirate 11:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents

I think that "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" is the best version of all versions ever proposed. I would be very surprised if anyone could come up with a better version, and I don't think it should be changed without lengthy discussion. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 04:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's funny. Why? The point of IAR is that you don't have to go through those lengthy discussions. IAR cuts the red tape and kills the mindless bureaucracy. We're not the government here. Saying IAR can't change without lengthy discussion is pretty much equivalent to saying the spirit of IAR is dead. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you regard long-term discussion of a controversial content issue as "red tape" and "mindless bureaucracy." WP:IAR is useful to new editors (who don't fully understand the rules), but when someone does understand a rule, the application of WP:IAR usually should be largely uncontroversial. It is not a license to bypass our normal consensus-based processes whenever one feels like it; doing so doesn't improve or maintain the project. —David Levy 07:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A sensible view. Why don't we put it into the text of the page so people don't get it wrong? (I'll tell you why, it's because there is no general agreement that this is what IAR means - it is all things to all people.) Haukur 10:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Among people who support the policy's existence, most would agree with what I wrote above. The policy remains succinct because attempts to "clarify" it invariably inject the very sort of bureaucracy (and unintended technicalities) that it's intended to alleviate. Such text—no matter how comprehensive—cannot possibly cover every situation, and that's one of the main reasons why the policy exists. —David Levy 13:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Among people who support the policy's existence, most would agree with what I wrote above. I doubt that. And "people who support the policy's existence" is not a well-defined set. I, for example, support some versions of what this page has said and not others. Haukur 13:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that most of the policy's supporters agree with the current wording and oppose revision. I'm saying that most would agree that the policy isn't a license to controversially bypass consensus whenever one feels like doing so. —David Levy 14:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that statement is bland enough that most everyone will agree with it. If you spiced it up a bit by changing "whenever one feels like doing so" to "whenever it is necessary for the good of the encyclopedia" you would get disagreement. But in any case that wasn't the part I thought would be controversial. You also said that IAR was useful for new editors who don't understand the rules, this is a view I agree with but not everyone does - some feel that IAR is only for editors who do understand the rules. You also said: "when someone does understand a rule, the application of WP:IAR usually should be largely uncontroversial." Even though you've made the statement fairly bland by including 'usually' and 'largely' I still think you can find people who would disagree with this. The fact is that every attempt to include a caveat in IAR that you still have to work with other people, get along, respect consensus or anything like that have been reverted. Haukur 14:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Ummm...yeah, if one "spiced up" my statement to convey something other than what I wrote, it might no longer be accurate.

2. I'm quite certain that most editors disagree with the notion that a new user must learn every rule before editing. This is a wiki, so mistakes can be corrected.

3. See above for the reason why attempts to expand the wording are reverted. —David Levy 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You say that attempts to expand the wording are reverted because they introduce loopholes ("unintended techinicalities"), ignoring that the text as it stands has a huge loophole in implying that you should do whatever you think is right regardless of what anyone else thinks. Haukur 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I obviously disagree with that assessment. —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

What unintended technicalities were introduced by the addition of: "Use your best judgment, treat your fellow contributors with respect, and focus on building the encyclopedia."? None at all and it still left the text in one line on my screen. Why is it impossible to get supporters of the current wording to accept such a harmless addition which would make several of us a lot happier? Haukur 15:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"It says 'focus on building the encyclopedia,' so the policy doesn't apply to talk pages or project pages!" —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. But I figure, the first sentence has the same problem, so at least we weren't making matters worse this way. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

By "the first sentence," are you referring to "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them."? —David Levy 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I mean. Admittedly, the fact that I didn't see much difference between "building the encyclopedia" and "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" might be my attitude problem, and would not necessarily be shared by others. I think it would sound awkward, but we could repeat "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" if it came to it. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely citing an example (off the top of my head) of the type of wiki-lawyering (in this case, the unintended distinction between the entire Wikipedia website and the encyclopedia proper) that we risk enabling. —David Levy 16:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it is that which is a significant factor in my opposition to just about everything people have tried to do with this. What now reads "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" invites a certain amount of weaseling already, and itself went through a few minor tweaks. I know, because one of my own anonymous adjustments still persists. But it is mostly harmless in that regard, and I think this one is as well, and is one of the few things I can get behind. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I really wish people would stop using "the spirit of the rule" as an argument. If there's a spirit of the rule, the text should support it. Speaking of new editors, how can someone expect a new editor to understand Wikipedia or its policies if the rules say one thing but have a different "spirit"? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it. I don't think I'm invoking the spirit of anything. Aren't you the one saying if we don't modify IAR, the spirit of IAR is dead and the terrorists have won and all that? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! I indented wrong; I was responding to David. I think IAR is terrorism... cool! I just made my own day.

Hmmm... You know, I'd like to see some changes... maybe we should just remove all text from the project page, but keep the policy box. If people favor simplicity for this policy, isn't that solution the most simple of them all? As it stands, the text is just a reiteration of the title... Hmmm... I don't like redundancy... let's see what we can do. Let the spirit prevail! Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, maybe we should just rid ourselves of all policies, including this one. Spirit spirit spirit! Have we forgotten? Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's too bad Jimbo is not a transcendent demigod. That would make life so much cooler (and editing so much easier). Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I said nothing about looking past the page's text to find a hidden meaning. I believe that the current wording perfectly conveys the policy's spirit.

2. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. —David Levy 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 19 indent tabs! Is that a record? (Ignore me...) Shalom ^Hello 17:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Not any more! Noroton 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Woo hoo! I wanted to see how many indents we could get! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact your statement now that "WP:IAR is useful to new editors (who don't fully understand the rules)" pretty much contradicts what you told me last year: "Your perception of this page does not match that of the community ... it's not advice for newbies to not worry about learning the rules" Haukur 14:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting me out of context. I was addressing your attempt to change the policy's wording to "If the rules make you nervous and depressed and not desirous of improving Wikipedia, then ignore them as you contribute to the encyclopedia." There's nothing wrong with editing Wikipedia before one understands the rules, but there is no consensus that new users should be encouraged to not bother learning them. Quoting myself, your wording (based on Sanger's original text) conveys "that it's okay for users to ignore the rules simply because they're inconvenient (id est, because they don't feel like following the rules)," and it explicitly excludes instances in which users make informed decisions to ignore rules that shouldn't be applied to specific situations. —David Levy 15:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

there is no consensus that new users should be encouraged to not bother learning them Of course not, I never said so. The point of IAR was (and should be) to encourage newbies to dive right in and start working; they'll pick things up as they go along. Somewhere along the way it got changed to this boring and unnecessary adage you are describing. I support the old version and oppose the new version, you support the new version and oppose the old version. There are also people who think that the old and new version mean the same thing. At least the two of us agree that this is not the case. Haukur 15:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, I agree with your interpretation of the policy's original meaning (which remains valid), but I believe that your preferred wording fails to properly convey it (and also omits another important meaning). That was the context in which I wrote the statement that you quoted. —David Levy 15:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd respond up there, but there's too much going on. You said originally that IAR is useful to new editors. No, it's not in its current state. It's useful to experienced editors as is, but means nothing to new editors. At least that's what experience has taught us. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I disagree. A new editor's mistaken belief that he/she must learn every rule before contributing might prevent him/her from improving Wikipedia, so the current wording is entirely applicable. —David Levy 16:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No new editor thinks that he/she must learn every rule, and we don't need to kid ourselves by saying they do. When you begin editing Wikipedia, you don't know rules exist, as you are literally editing text. That's how Wikipedia was set up and how it bills itself -- anyone can edit. Our policies are back-end and become learned once an editor has been editing for at least a bit. Front-end/back-end is how Wikipedia operates. First someone edits the product, then they learn functional policies, then they learn meta-policies like IAR. To say that IAR is totally applicable to new editors would be, well, wrong. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, I spent a long time reading up on Wikipedia's rules before I felt comfortable editing. (I was afraid of messing up.) If I'd known about this policy (which I didn't find until later), I would have simply begun contributing immediately.

2. If, as you claim, new editors aren't even aware that meta-policies exist (which, in my case, was true of this policy), how would rewording it be of any benefit to them? —David Levy 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one way: If the current wording of WP:IAR wasn't so awful I would link to it in personal welcome template. On the other hand maybe I'm stuck back in 2003, maybe there really is no easy way to just start contributing now. I don't know. Things were a lot more lightweight back then. No categories. Fewer intimidating templates at the start of articles. Not a wall of scary (and near-pointless) "project" templates on every talk page. Haukur 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus for change

This talk page gets us nowhere. Malcolm's addition to WP:VPR got us nowhere. And I can guarantee you that a RfC or RfM would also go nowhere... as of right now, given the past few months, the only way this page will ever have any sort of decision made on it is at RfAr. Not that I'm saying I want to go through with one, but that obviously we're just wasting our time trying to get anything changed when various editors just revert any addition to the policy without even concerning themselves with the talk page. At this point in time, consensus through talk will never be reached, and if we want change, something a bit more serious has to take place. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, the only reason consensus through talk cannot be reached is because certain people do not join in the discussions about editing the page, but simply revert any edits to this page. That seems hardly productive. I don't understand why people object to explaining things to novice users, at any rate. >Radiant< 16:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That's exactly the issue at hand. Either we protect the correct version or we take more drastic steps, because we're wasting our time now so long as people keep reverting and protecting the old version. I know what the problem is just as much as you do, and what happened today is not an exception -- the whole revert/protect thing has been happening for the past three months, so obviously this talk page is taking us nowhere. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • You can't run around changing foundational principles at a whim. Of course most edits to this will be reverted. And the philosophical distinction becomes important here - is it more important to have a perfectly-formulated, exception-free rule, or a guideline that tells people what the general spirit of the community is? If only the people most concerned about the phrasing of this rule were more prepared to WP:IGNORE it, we would have stopped worrying so much about this long ago. I agree completely: if you want WP:IGNORE to be changed fundamentally, then there will have to be a fundamental change - what resulted would not be Wikipedia. Slac speak up! 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • If you read the talk page, you would know any change to the project page is not on a "whim." Also, IAR /= Wikipedia. Fundamental, yes. Solid, no. Read Jimbo's comment above. Finally, what you need to realize is that the current version is just over a year old. Wikipedia has been aorund for six years. The rules change. They get rewritten. IAR is no exception. Stop with this nonsense about changing IAR would result in something that "would not be Wikipedia." That's just naive and plain wrong. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is a very dangerous rule. People are starting to use this to argue that articles should be kept at AFD when they're otherwise in clear violation of items in WP:NOT. I dont think anything has been kept solely due to this, but this could render the AFD useless. Corpx 01:11, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but it's a foundational principle. People don't seem to get somthing... this isn't a "rule", it's one of the Five Pillars of wikipedia... If we changed this, what remains would not be wikipedia. Now, people object to changing this policy because most of us view the supposed abuses as being totally disingenuous perpetrations of trolls, and changing the wording will not help solve the problem on iota, so the arguments being thrown around in AFD aren't necesarraly convincing. Now, everyone who has a firm grasp of this principle knows that this isn't a cart blance to do anything, so it's illegitimate to suggest that it be used in this manner, but adding so much as one more letter to this page would cause the very wikilawyering that this policy is designed to head off. Thanatosimii 02:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit available on the internet. Someone needs to change the subtitle to say From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has a foundataion principle/bigger than a rule/pillar of wikipedia called "Ignore all rules" that only consists of twelve words. Please keep hyperbolism out of this, it doesn't help any more than sarcasm. As much as I like the current wording, there's merit in the argument that its unclear to those who miss the point, and certainly more than the argumentum ad antiquitatem from Mr. Wales that is used in the policy box. Atropos 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Thanatosimii, to change it would mean Wikipedia would no longer exist in principle. Any extension of this policy is at detriment to the entire spirit of a wiki. --PopUpPirate 11:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which has a foundataion principle/bigger than a rule/pillar of wikipedia called "Ignore all rules" that only consists of twelve words is certainly far better than From Wikipedia, a social experiment where users fight over the exact wording of an inviolable set of rules and hope that in the process an encyclopedia gets written. That's exactly what's happening to it these days. You cannot have a perfect set of rules; it is impossible, it will never happen, and when problems arise if the response is to fix the rules, the encyclopedia suffers as we all wait for a perfection that cannot and will never come about. IAR exists so that we write an encyclopedia, not a law code, and adding anything to this rule, either adding words or adding a our own community midrash, takes this principle and makes it more like a rule. How, exactly, can writing a more complecated law code fix a problem caused by having complex law codes? Thanatosimii 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not support an extension, but rather, an explanation. At present, the policy is far too arcane and doesn't actually describe what it's for. - Chardish 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand Ignore All Rules or it makes you unhappy, ignore it. --The Cunctator 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks. IAR changes. Get over it. It's not some set in stone rule. Read the talk page. Look at the history of the policy. Talk about the spirit of the Wiki, by saying that the rule can't change (and it is a rule as well as a foundational principle), you're going completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The suggested change is bad.--The Cunctator 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying something without explaining it is worse. This isn't a vote. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If people are reverting to the old version, it's probably because they like the old version. I am an unashamed advocate of the old version. The more you write, the more there is to wikilawyer over. K.I.S.S. --TONY SIDAWAY 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The KISS principle, as used in the political realm of policy setting, was thrown out by academics years ago. It was cited as an ineffective way to manage groups. Ironic, right? Plus, there are only about three people who revert back to the old version. A vocal minority /= consensus. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rockstar915. The KISS principle doesn't work here, because we have ample evidence that the simplest possible phrasing of the rule leads to rampant misunderstanding. On the other hand, we do link to an essay that explains IAR, so I don't necessarily see the need to refactor that explanatory essay onto the policy page. There is some value in simplicity, and as long as we direct people to an explanation, we're not being overly obtuse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. When we finally were able to get that essay up, IAR improved -- in my opinion -- dramatically. The only issue is that when we point people to an essay we're bound to run into the "It's only an essay, it's not policy, and it only reflects the opinion of the author(s)" argument. And so, I am being bold and am changing the tag on the essay page. If we agree that the change is good, I think we can all be happy. Consensus is finding a common middle ground. Let's actually do it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No, people have been fighting over this page since well before I started paying attention to this page about six months ago... in this time, myriads of people have protested changes, and only a handful of very vocal people have supported changing it. Thanatosimii 18:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

"Only a handful of very vocal people have supported changing it." Of which one is Jimbo. And that was just over a week ago. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Though if you read it, that comment is in opposition to the latest version we had up there. If the comment supports anything specific, it would be the old-school version. Supporting some change, and supporting a specific change are, of course, different questions. That is of course part of the problem (if it is a problem). Even Tony isn't opposed to all change. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I advocate a much slimmer version, namely a blank page. If there's nothing there, there's nothing to wikilawyer over. --TONY SIDAWAY 19:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, this is one instance that I actually agree with you. I would be happy either with lots of explanation or no text at all. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a blank page is to communication, as shitting directly into someone's face is to cuisine. It's like saying, "if you don't immediately get what I mean, then fuck you, I can't be bothered to communicate." This is an encyclopedia, not a Rinzai Zen school. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus wins the analogy contest. The blank page is a cute idea, but I agree it's not very useful. Friday (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, assuming we are actually running on consensus reasoning rather than polling, I don't understand what the problem is with RFC'ing it. If it is just an obstinate clique rather than a genuine lack of consensus for change, surely RFC is the answer. Slac speak up! 03:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC sounds like a good idea to me. The worst it could do is not help, right? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think a good question to ask RfC is: Would a slightly longer wording of IAR help explain it better? If so, what should the longer wording say? - Chardish 04:52, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Worse

The suggested revised wording does nothing other than increase verbiage.

Look at previous versions:

If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.

Short and sweet. Wikipedia:Suggestions on how to ignore all rules explains the basic philosophy behind Ignore All Rules. --The Cunctator 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. --Tony Sidaway 16:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I really don't understand this line of thinking. "Keep the policy short, because we have this non-policy essay to explain it." If the only thing that's special about policy is that it enjoys wide consensus, and the essay enjoys wide consensus, then why isn't the policy a variation on the essay? The only explanation I can see for this thought process is that more policy is bad, which, ironically, is not the case because of IAR. - Chardish 22:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Relatively few people have read the essay and it has its own problems. Your additions to this page are also severely flawed and derive from some misunderstandings. IAR is a minimal axiom or a common denominator. Once you start adding to that, you have fewer people in agreement with the principles added. Other policies work in the same way, but IAR is distinctly not the place to have a grand sculpting and compromise process to add more rules. —Centrx→talk • 23:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that my aim is not to "add more rules" to IAR, but to explain the existing rule. IAR is needlessly cryptic, which is why your interpretation of what it means differs from mine. There is no point to having a minimal axiom if there is no consensus about what it means. - Chardish 02:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a {{lorem ipsum}} tag would satisfy your wish for more exposition. Ignore all rules means ignore all rules. --Tony Sidaway 03:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Both of the original versions of this page appear to have more to do with style guidelines than policies, however. "rules" is terribly ambiguous. -- nae'blis 03:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess the people who have treated it as core policy have simply ignored all rules in doing so. Works for me. --Tony Sidaway 04:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not only is "rules" terribly ambiguous (as we've already established that you can't circumvent foundation issues no matter what), "ignore" is terribly ambiguous, too. If you're always supposed to "ignore all rules", then there might as well not be any other rules - after all, if the rules are there, you might be tempted to pay attention to them, which is against a literal interpretation of IAR. - Chardish 04:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a largely semantic issue. This rule is well understood and is successfully applied on a daily, even hourly basis by editors across the wiki. --Tony Sidaway 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the rule is well understood at all. User:Kim Bruning made a very good point in a previous discussion that you don't really "get" IAR until you've been heavily editing Wikipedia for several months. The obtuse, near-paradoxical wording is an obstacle to understanding. - Chardish 04:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

(reindent - the topic still - The suggested revised wording does nothing other than increase verbiage. ) — If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia..... — The focus is on improving and maintaining WP, and that particular personal decision and WP:HONESTY. Assume good faith, those ten words need no addition, except, of course, the two word title phrase. As the page stands currently, it imHo is an honest reflection of the wish to simplify rules where possible; having survived in similar versions for some months, or thereabouts. And essays are linked to from WP:POLs when appropriate, not incorporated when the text, suggested revised wording, is WorsE. — Newbyguesses - Talk 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit

{{editprotected}}
Very simple:

• Dutch interwiki: nl:Wikipedia:Negeer alle regels
• Place the "reword" tag above the "policy" tag.

That is all :-) SalaSkan 02:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edits, per the {{editprotected}} request. They seemed uncontroversial enough, and certainly not related to the dispute leading to protection. If either edit was inappropriate (surely the Dutch interwiki is harmless), someone please let me know so I can self-revert. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed short wording

This came to me as I was cooking dinner tonight. (Is it pathetic that I think about Wikipedia meta-process when I'm away from my computer?) Nonetheless, here's my idea for the policy:

The rules are important, but don't let them make you angry or depressed. After all, sometimes they are wrong. If you think this is the case, just ignore them and use your best judgment.

Here's what I think this version retains that others lack:

• An indication that it is still a good idea to know the rules
• Jimbo's comments that IAR is about treating people sensibly
• The spirit that no one should get hung up on the rules
• A clear presentation of the fact that IAR is about harmonious editing, and that it isn't something special you "invoke" (like pleading the fifth.)
• A friendly tone (if IAR is supposed to prevent wikilawyering, why make it feel like a legal document?)
• Terseness (not an issue for me, but some people seem to cling to a short wording)
• An indication that this is a subjective matter (and that there are not well-defined "right times" or "wrong times" to ignore the rules)

I think that if we're going to use this version, we need to push for Wikipedia:WikiLawyering to become policy or a guideline. It's very, very important. - Chardish 23:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have some small ideas for revision:

The rules are important for Wikipedia to function; however, no rule ever applies to every case. If you feel as though the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them and use your best judgement.

To be honest I think that your wording is a little too friendly. Angry or depressed? That's very subjective and sort of dangerous in my opinion, as I've come across several editing problems with people ruining articles like Homosexuality in ancient Greece because they were upset that their beloved history was being 'violated' by a homosexual agenda. I think making IAR too subjective invites trouble from trolls and POV pushers. Also, linking to the 'what IAR means' page will give users who feel confused by this policy a means to understand it. CaveatLector^Talk 12:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd really recommend you read Jimbo's statement above, where he says a few things about what IAR should be. Note that he says "For example, I liked the old old version which said that if rules make you nervous and depressed, ignore them." As for the POV thing, I would say that POV pushers are typically operating under an assumption (valid or invalid) that their point of view is not being fairly represented. In this case, it's not the rules that are making the person angry or depressed, it's the article and other editors, and I don't see how my proposed wording above could be construed to support POV pushing.
Addendum: IAR can't possibly work unless you ignore rules subjectively, because the rules are designed to be objective. If there were times when it was objectively appropriate to not follow a particular rule, that would be written into the objective rule. Furthermore, Jimbo said above that IAR is designed to prevent ruleslawyering - the only way that could possibly be done is if there is a "golden rule" that's not set objective. That's IAR. - Chardish 21:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we stuck to what we have now. Any issues with the current text are inherent in all others. Keep it short and simple. Steve block Talk 13:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a non-answer. Please show how the above does not clarify the original intent without being cryptic. -- nae'blis 19:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not a non-answer, it's my opinion. Please don't trample all over it. I would rather the guidance was brief and to the point, and didn't involve emotive language or outline unnecessary positions. What happens to people who aren't depressed or angry, can they ignore all the rules too? Let's put the boot on the other foot, then if you wish to take this tone. What is so broken with the current version that your version will so neatly fix? Steve block Talk 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I find your first question ironic, as you're searching the text for loopholes. IAR means there are no loopholes. As for your other question, the problem with the current wording of IAR is that it doesn't explain why the policy is in place, so editors are left with no clues about how to apply it. - Chardish 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. doesn't explain why the policy is in place? It's quite clear that the policy is in place so that the improvement of Wikipedia remains the most important thing. There can be no clues as to how to apply it because it is impossible to dictate how you apply it. As for irony, I'm British, it comes with the territory. I'm unsure which new wording you are suggesting, so I am unsure which one I should be picking apart. All I came here to do was offer my opinion, not get caught in a debating chamber. Steve block Talk 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but if you read Jimbo's explanation of IAR (which I linked to above), it's very clear that there's a great deal of rationale behind this policy that's not being elucidated - and it's not mearly as simple as "the improvement of Wikipedia remains the most important thing." (Isn't that statement obvious?) - Chardish 12:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See, I read Jimbo's statement and I walk away thinking that he meant it really was as simple as the improvement of Wikipedia remains the most important thing. But honestly, I'm done here. I think arguing over the words of this policy is in breach of the rules-lawyering that Jimbo guards against, and I also think it matters little. If the wording offends me, I can simply ignore it. My main point remains; you will never get a version on which everyone will agree or which will be understood by all. Therefore all versions are inherently flawed, this version is no better and no worse than any other and so I happily express my opinion that we simply stick with this one. But best wishes and good luck with it. Steve block Talk 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't mean to be dismissive (and should have specified that I wasn't talking about your first sentence, but your second), but it didn't address the original post. Obviously there are differences (diffs, if you will) between the current text and the original/second/proposed text, or we'd not be having this discussion. Saying that any other revision will inherently have the same issues as the current revision is difficult for me to wrap my brain around, and seems dismissive. -- nae'blis 06:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry it is difficult for you to wrap your brain around. The inherent problem with the Ignore all rules policy is that it is a subjective policy which has no clear definition. The spirit of the policy is "build the encyclopedia", but there is no specific wordset which will cover every eventuality or nail exactly what the policy means. Every wording will have flaws due to the subjective nature of the policy. That given, every attempt to say what the policy will mean is going to suffer, and so in the spirit of keeping it simple, let's just tell it like it is. Do your best, build the encyclopedia and don't worry. But, whatever. At this point I could care less, it's just one more thing for policy wonks to get all het up about and I can simply ignore it all. I took a vow not to edit policy talk pages anymore because it is inherently frustrating. I simply wanted to add my voice to the point of view that there was nothing wrong with the current wording, in the hope that a consensus might form around that position. I do not have the emotional investment nor the time to lead the building of any consensus, I merely wanted to play my small little part as one of the members of the community. I apologise for being dismissive, but that is simply the viewpoint I hold at this moment in time. For me, do not like the new wording and so dismiss it, perhaps I should not feel so, but there you go. Cheers, best wishes and all the best with the rewrite. Steve block Talk 11:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

Consensus is about two or more parties working together to find a middle ground with which both parties are content. It seems to me that we've found this middle ground: for those who want an expanded version, we have a strong "about IAR" page that has been upgraded from an essay to an "explanation page." For those who want to keep IAR as is, well, it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. I think we can all finally be happy, right?
Maybe it's time to shake hands, smile and focus on what the policy prescribes: building Wikipedia. I think that in all our banter, we've lost sight of what the rule was meant for. So we've found a middle ground. Let's go write feature articles. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The "explanation page" tag (which, as you should have mentioned, you put there) along with the claim of consensus turns the page into a POV fork, with the particular POV that IAR should be longer. If the "explanation page" truly enjoys consensus, then it has the force of policy, and then we wind up with two policies that attempt to say the same thing in different ways. Then both pages risk being possessively controlled in the same ways we've seen this page being controlled. If you ask me, this is worse than having one policy that we can't agree on. - Chardish 00:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As you wish, but you're fighting a battle that, though it sounds pessimistic, you won't win. I say take your victories where you get them and, if you want to work on IAR, work on that explanation page. Otherwise, with enough bickering, the entire "What IAR means" page will be deleted or disbanded and you'll be left with (guess what?) the same old policy there was to begin with.

After my experience of five months of back and forth on this talk page, I can guarantee you that the explanation page (and yes, I changed the tag, but only because it reflected what consensus was already saying) is the best we're going to get. So either live with it or continue to waste your time. But I'm urging you to not waste your time. Write the encyclopedia, that's why we're all here. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's what IAR is all about too. :-) --Deskana (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! IAR shouldn't have a talk page specifically for this reason. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I applaud your efforts, but I don't think the solution to any edit war (or debate) is a POV fork. I'm all about building the encyclopedia too, but part of that is making sure the editor guidelines are sound. I still don't see what's wrong with the version I gave above, and I wish more people would comment on it, even if all they have to say is "I agree." - Chardish 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Addendum: I applaud your efforts, not your decision to turn the essay into a policy fork. : ) - Chardish 01:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Every other Wikipedia whose language I can read has a better version of this page than the English one. Haukur 00:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that imply that the best way to improve it is by writing it in a language you don't know? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It probably just means that you should be writing that language's version of Wikipedia. Maybe IAR should say "If these rules make you nervous or depressed, go write the French language Wikipedia. You might like their rules better." Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Way ahead of you.[1] The last few days I've been most active on the Faroese Wikipedia, though.[2] Haukur 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You just made my day! Have you written the equivalent to IAR on those sites yet? Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. I guess I could translate some version of IAR I like (say, the German one) into Faroese or Icelandic and then be KING OF IAR in that language muhuhaha :þ But there are probably a hundred things those Wikipedias need more at the moment. Haukur 01:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It's funny how right you are. I like the German version's wording especially, but I could be biased because that's my best foreign language. I also like the Spanish version's exhortation to use common sense. - Chardish 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Rockstar915's re-tagging and strongly disagree that the explanatory page constitutes a POV fork. It's a supplement to the policy, which is something that past discussions have demonstrated clear consensus for. —David Levy 01:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note! We haven't always gotten along (God knows) but I'm glad we can agree on something! :)

In any case, the reason why I changed the tag on the page was not to create some POV fork (I'm curious as to how it can be seen as such in the first place) but rather (and apparently naively) in the hopes that it would bring the two parties to some mutual agreement, or at least some sort of consensus stalemate. However, I'm beginning to see that there will always be those who will have some sort of problem with the policy. And I'm not just talking about Chardish.

The way Wikipedia works is that policy comes from building the encyclopedia, not the other way around. That's why IAR exists. It may seem contradictory to many, but it works in the end. And so, if the rules make you nervous or depressed (as is often the case with this particular rule), ignore them and build the encyclopedia. Over time consensus will form new policies and change old ones, and will make the encyclopedia stronger.

Because of this, arguing over a policy gets us nowhere. I'm beginning to see why Jimbo (in his statement of principles) says that meta-discussions shouldn't take place here. We're here for one purpose only. The rules, by nature and the foundations of this encyclopedia, are secondary. We really are building the bike while riding it, and the funny thing is, it's worked out quite well. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oy there, I'm not always going to have a problem with this policy. I've proposed two new wordings, one of which was widely accepted at the talk page before it sparked a giant revert war when it was implemented, and the other (one section above) which has been barely commented on apart from meta-comments. - Chardish 12:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I thought I had been clear in expressing my dislike of it, I hadn't realised I was commenting in a post modern manner. Steve block Talk 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing - you've realized what IAR is about (and I have, as well) because of being involved in this weeks-long discussion. It would be nice if IAR could be worded in a way that it didn't take weeks of discussing it to understand it. That's the reason I'm here at this talk page - to push to make the intent of the policy more clear and the text more accessible to the everyday reader or editor. - Chardish 12:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, this talk page doesn't illustrate the meaning of IAR, the policy page does, and it does it best in its simplest form. --PopUpPirate 14:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read Jimbo's comments about what IAR means and then show me where the policy page explains any of that. Policy should not be an exercise in eisegesis. - Chardish 21:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR sums up Jimbo's comments very well. Dunno what eisegesis means. --PopUpPirate 13:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But its so poetic! I agree; the arguments to make this more clear (primarily that it could be more clear; secondarily that it needs to be more clear) are much stronger than arguments against changing it (argumentum ad antiquitatem and argumentum ad verecundiam / ad jimbonem and the honestly hilarious BUT IT WOULDN'T BE WIKIPEDIA!!). Atropos 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The argument against changing the current version which convinces this editor is as follows: the new material, "What 'Ignore all rules' means", works really well, exactly where it is, and as it is, as a link from the unarguable twelve-word version of IAR itself. — Newbyguesses - Talk 01:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Then that page needs to be policy. Atropos 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Since when? WP:A summarizes WP:V and WP:OR very well, and it's not a policy. A summary page is not policy, but rather, well, a summary page. It's not like those pages don't exist on Wikipedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. This fascination with giving every page an "official status" is against the spirit of IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. A problem arises when people start assuming that a "wikipedia summary" is something different from what "summary" means according to the dictionary ("essay" is beginning to have that problem, for one). >Radiant< 13:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A summary should make something lengthy into something concise. If the "summary" of a policy is thirty-six times longer than the actual policy, then shouldn't that be a hint that maybe the policy needs clarifying? Would you read Cliffs Notes if they were thirty-six times longer than the actual book? - Chardish 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about simply using an accurate term (such as "elaboration") instead of changing things to reflect an inaccurate term? —David Levy 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point that I never even considered: WIARM was never described as a summary page, but rather an explanation page. An explanation of a term is often longer than the term. I like your thinking, David Levy! And to think we ever had problems. How foolish I was. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hilarious! We don't understand IAR at all! We're just mindless "preservers", aimed at keeping certain content the same for no reason other than it works. Slac speak up! 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's not broken, why fix it? Well, it might have been broken before, but the addition of WP:WIARM fixed that. I really don't understand what all this fuss is about anymore. We're just nitpicking now, and that's lame. Middle ground, folks. Middle ground. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not get upset that some of us do not agree with your attempted solution. - Chardish 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said I was upset? I'm just saying it's pretty much a non-issue now. As far as I can tell, there's only one person who is strongly advocating change. With a policy like IAR, you're going to need a hell of a lot more people than that to get anything done. But if you want to keep trying, by all means, go ahead. But pushing against a wall gets tiring after a while, trust me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

IAR is just fine the way it is/was. It's a beautiful thing really. It can zap you back to reality when you get lost in the quagmire of policy. There's no need to excuse it, over-explain it, or substantially change it. It has its place. heqs ·:. 19:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And thankfully discussion seems to be proving consensus for this, too --PopUpPirate 19:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This version of IAR (the current one) is probably the worst one we've ever had, as it's the result of constant whittling down and reversion to previous versions (as opposed to genuine improvement and compromise.) See the comment above that every other language has a better IAR than we do. - Chardish 22:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The wording isn't the worst we've ever had, but the "nervous and depressed" wording was much better. I fully support changing it back to that version. Hell, even Jimbo supports that wording. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think my short form, The rules are important, but don't let them make you angry or depressed. After all, sometimes they are wrong. If you think this is the case, just ignore them and use your best judgment. says everything that needs to be said. - Chardish (talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC).

I personally believe that the "nervous and depressed" wording is the worst that we've had. Its intended meaning is good, but it's too specific (because there are other valid reasons to ignore rules) and it invites the interpretation that it's okay to ignore rules that we simply don't feel like following. ("Not revert-warring to restore my non-NPOV version makes me depressed!") —David Levy 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo likes it, which I think says a lot (since he designed the rule.) Also, I think that my version (2 posts above this one) rectifies that possibility of misinterpretation. - Chardish 23:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A summary gives the main points of a document.(EverydayOxfrd,711) If the rules prevent you...12 words... Thats simple. (A summary is not the same thing as an essay(239), elaboration(226), but best is explanation(246) for a longer document.) Nervous(470)? Depressed(189)? No, and no, thanks — Newbyguesses - Talk 23:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chardish: The problem with your wording is that it takes the focus of IAR away from Wikipedia and towards the rules themselves. The current wording says, though implicitly, that we're here for one reason: to write an encyclopedia. If the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them... just look at the focus of that statement.

Anyway, I was trying to figure out why I didn't like your wording, and I finally figured it out: your wording loses that underlying spirit and focuses only on the rules themselves. But that's not why we're here: rules are secondary, hence our need for a policy like IAR. We're here to write an encyclopedia, so fuck the rules and fuck changing them; they're not important. If we spend too much time worrying about the rules, we lose sight of the goal of this project. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you would advocate a more general case - what about Don't let the rules make you angry or depressed - ignore them and focus on building the encyclopedia. ? I'm pushing for this because I feel like we have need for this policy, but when most of us don't understand it, it doesn't do any good. I don't feel like the essay explains the spirit behind the rule, either (per Jimbo's writings.) - Chardish 01:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That wording actually encourages people to routinely ignore rules (lest they become "angry or depressed").

I don't understand this insistence on using such terminology (which was Larry Sanger's attempt to explain that people should feel free to contribute without learning every rule, but comes across as permission to deliberately disregard rules simply because we dislike them). —David Levy 01:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(reset indenting) AHA! I think I'm seeing what you're saying. But I still think that the current wording is way too cryptic, and needs improvement. I'm beginning to drift back to the position of "make the essay page the rules page." What about a compromise wording? See below. - Chardish 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes! Less is more. --PopUpPirate 23:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry Sanger (not Jimbo Wales) was the original author. That's irrelevant, however. Jimbo has the authority to unilaterally dictate the policy's wording, but he hasn't done that. —David Levy 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You get to that age when you're growing up where your parents can still make you do what they want, but they don't really want to because it's time for you to grow up. It's still a good idea to listen to their advice, though, and really give it serious consideration and benevolent prejudice unless there's good reason not to. That's kind of our relationship with Jimbo. - Chardish 01:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo actually often compares himself to a Constitutional Monarch. Yes, he has the power to unilaterally change and create policies, but if you read his recent comment on this talk page, he wouldn't do anything against consensus. So basically he has the power but really won't use it anymore, as the community can override him and he won't argue with it. He's kind of like the Queen of England - he has power but won't use it, and is more of a figurehead than anything else. Which is why, though he supports the old version of IAR, he won't change it back. I don't know how we got on this topic, though. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's input certainly is worthy of respect and consideration, but he has demonstrated no desire to dictate the policy's wording. —David Levy 01:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't mean he wouldn't condone a particular course of action - and I don't know how directly stating which version he prefers is any different from doing so. - Chardish 03:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo doesn't condone the idea of substituting his personal opinions for consensus. —David Levy 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I said no such thing. That's a straw man argument. - Chardish 05:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I've misunderstood your comments. Is it not your stance that Jimbo wants us to defer to his judgement (and that we should strongly consider doing so)? —David Levy 15:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Compromise wording

What about this:

The rules are important, but don't obsess over them. After all, sometimes they are wrong. If they prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them and use your best judgment.

That wording:

• contains an exhortation against wikilawyering, which Jimbo stresses
• retains the "prevent you from improving the encyclopeida" wording which many people seem to be fond of
• explains that the rules are not infallible, which Jimbo stresses and pretty much everyone agrees is the case
• is still very short
• explains itself, which the current policy doesn't do (and virtually every other policy on Wikipedia does)
• doesn't require an entire extra page to explain (though I think it still benefits from WP:WIARM as further supplementary material)

I think it's a pretty good compromise wording that seems to reflect common ideas. - Chardish 03:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yecch, yecch, yecch. I don't like the policy saying that the rules are wrong. I do like the "use your best judgment" part, though. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it says that the rules are sometimes wrong. Jimbo agrees. (See the bottom of the third paragraph there. - Chardish 04:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether the rules are right or wrong is subjective and not always applicable. They can be ignored regardless, and there is no need to add the right/wrong argument. --PopUpPirate 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Does it strike anyone else as ironic to start a page called "ignore all rules" with the phrase "the rules are important"? >Radiant< 14:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How about "Ignoring the rules is often more important than following them" --PopUpPirate 15:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that is true. Chances are (even if you're ignoring them), if you're improving Wikipedia you're probably following the rules anyway. Ignoring the rules is different from not following them. Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I see where Pirate is going, but the version is a bit awkward, yes. I've tried this for another kick at the can. After all, in the bit just Chardish quoted, Jimbo also says that "being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quite a neat version at present. I'd like "Ignore the rules if you like. It is a wiki, after all." --PopUpPirate 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That still loses the focus, though I have to admit I like the idea of having no text on the project page. ;) Speaking of which, I'm waiting for the hour when Tony comes and "trims the fat." Heh. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Consideration of grammar?

Is it for or of? Are you considerate for something? I think you're considerate of something, but I want to double-check before making a change. God, and I majored in English in college, too. Maybe I should go back to school. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "of" would be correct, but I just tweaked the wording (hopefully in a satisfactory manner). —David Levy 21:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, looks good. I tweaked it a tiny bit more. I like! Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And it has the nice "c" alliteration ring to it, too! :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I just mentioned that in my edit summary before reading the above comment.  :) —David Levy 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I love it! I also just added a link to WP:SENSE in the common sense part. Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try.

I prefer the single-sentence version, but it was nice to work toward what seemed like a reasonable compromise. But I guess that this wasn't to be just yet. Drat. —David Levy 23:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That version was the consensus version. There needs to be consensus to revert it back to the old version, I would think. In the end, I don't care which version we use, as I would say I've got a pretty good grasp of the policy. I just don't like blind reverts. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It really bugged me that PopUpPirate did that without even leaving a note on the talk page (a drive-by reversion, so to speak). The edit also shouldn't have been labeled "minor." —David Levy 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I reverted him. If he wants to make a point, he's welcome to make it here, but blind reverting using "consensus" as an excuse doesn't cut it with me. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't get too het up. My preference is for the long-standing version, so I boldly reverted, and got reverted back, so now we're discussing. --PopUpPirate 23:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This editor understood that the current consensus is for the (12 word long) version preferred by User:PopopPirate, among others, and would like that version restored presently. The version inspired by fr:wiki was good though. (Good sense, initiative, and consideration for others are more important than rules...)

The version which introduced "rules are secondary" was useful, it got me thinking. I added "Assuming and exhibiting good faith..."; reasoning being, that when one finds oneself ready to "Ignore all rules", it is best to examine carefully one's motivations. That is, I would ignore all rules, only after thinking, deeply, and considering, twice or more, "In good faith, is the change I am considering for the purpose of improving or maintaining WP?" A genuine attempt to improve WP, which exhibits good faith, is the spirit which should accompany any occasion of "ignoring the rules". So, I think AGF is relevant, if it conveys the sense of personal integrity being involved. The alliteration in "secondary to common sense, consensus..." is interesting, but just a little "clunky", nicht war? It was nice working toward a compromise, but at this time I prefer the single sentence version, and so do others.Newbyguesses - Talk 00:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So do I, but an acceptable compromise seems like a good idea.

The concept of assuming and exhibiting good faith has only peripheral relevance to this policy (because it applies to all edits), and users certainly aren't required to engage in the thought process that you've described before ignoring a rule.

I like the alliteration. —David Levy 01:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I like David's version and I'll probably support just about any version which prominently features the word consensus. Haukur 01:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I very much like the current version (the one about the rules being secondary to content, consensus, and common sense.) I don't know who came up with it, but I'd like to think it kind of belongs to all of us. Well done : ) - Chardish 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More changes

I have three problems with Centrx's version:
1. It implies that using common sense, following consensus, and focusing on encyclopedic content are things to think about only when ignoring the rules. It's better to refer to ignoring the rules as something to do when the rules interfere with these things.
2. Wikipedia:Consensus is a policy (not a guideline) pertaining to a concept that often is misunderstood, so it makes sense to link the word "consensus" to it. Otherwise, users who read WP:IAR will be more likely to misunderstand what's expected of them. (For example, it's common for people to mistakenly believe that "consensus" means "unanimity," and we certainly don't want people to think that they should seek unanimous agreement before editing a page.)
3. The policy applies to the entire site, not merely to the encyclopedia proper.
It's with the above in mind that I switched to the new version. Opinions? (There seemed to be support for the previous wording, so I wouldn't mind reverting to that or something close to it.) —David Levy 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The new version has its priorities incorrect regardless. It implies that you should ignore the rules only in those special cases when you have determined the rules to conflict with common sense, consensus, and encyclopedic content. Instead, the editor should simply use common sense, consensus, and encyclopedic content in the first place, without reference to the rules at all.

2. It doesn't really matter what Wikipedia:Consensus is labelled, whether it is labelled correctly or whether it is help understanding at all. Putting a reference to it here in the content of the policy subsumes IAR under a rule. It adds rules to IAR. Under that wording, someone is supposed to look to the rule page that they are supposed to ignore to decide whether they should ignore the rules.

3. The purpose of the site is the encyclopedia, and all maintenance and improvement is ultimately to that end. —Centrx→talk • 03:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Your version (and the longstanding version) advised readers to ignore the rules when they prevented users from "improving or maintaining Wikipedia." My version retains that sentiment while adding the "common sense" and "consensus" references to the pertinent statement (and stressing that they always are important). As I said, your version cited these only in the context of what to do when ignoring rules.

2. Ummmm...no. Linking to Wikipedia:Consensus merely helps people to understand the concept of consensus (just as linking to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines provides context without subsuming WP:IAR under that rule). I agree that the tag doesn't really matter (aside from the fact that it isn't some random essay), but you referred to it as a "guideline."

3. Yes, but referencing the encyclopedia in particular invites wikilawyering. ("This isn't an article, so you aren't allowed to ignore any rules on this page!") —David Levy 04:16/04:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Centrx is quite right here. They should not have to read WP:CON. And I mean, honestly. We're concerned about Wikilawyering over "focus on the encyclopedia", but not over "consensus"? We're really shooting ourselves in the foot, given that the justification for clarifying IAR in the first place is supposed to be that it is misunderstood, misapplied, and abused. But we all know very well that good examples of misundertanding, misapplication, or outright rhetorical abuse of consensus are in even greater supply. We don't have to go much further than this talk page.

Let's make this page standalone and rely on plain english, like is done on the 12-word .... "consensus version". --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. So...including the link to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines means that people are required to read that page before ignoring rules?

2. Yes, the concept of consensus is often misunderstood, misapplied and abused. That's why linking to the policy that explains it is helpful.

3. Do you agree that consensus is highly relevant to WP:IAR? If so, would you object to including the word (plain English) without linking it to the policy page? If so, why? If not, how is it preferable to reference the concept without directing readers to the page that explains it? —David Levy 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

1. The link to the "rules" is a reference to what is supposed to be ignored, and clarifies that all so-called "rules" can be ignored, but take it out if you want.

2. If someone wants to know about Wikipedia:Consensus, put it in the See also section.

3. Consensus is no more relevant to IAR than other policies, or Wikipedia:Five pillars. Consensus is dependent upon and does not exist without the basic principles of an encyclopedia, and if there should be a link to some basic page that qualifies IAR, it would be more properly to Wikipedia:Five pillars, but the whole point is that linking to rules that constrict IAR is a contradiction. Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Use common sense are all just as relevant, but we should not link to them as though IAR depended on them. —Centrx→talk • 19:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. No, I don't want to take it out.

2. Sure, let's put the link in the "see also" section instead. That's fine.

3. As I've said, I prefer the twelve-word version. But if we're going to reference "consensus" (and it would be very nice to reach an acceptable compromise), it's important that readers be directed to the page on which the concept is explained. Otherwise, this addition might do more harm than good. —David Levy 19:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that bantering about what the wording implies is less important than choosing a wording that correctly identifies the spirit behind the rules. When someone says "The wording implies X," what is more accurately the case is "someone could read into this that it means X." I don't think it's productive to worry about people who misinterpret well-expressed policy. - Chardish 06:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that there may in fact be two consensi concerning this page. One is for those editors who would actually rather not be editing such pol/pages, and rather not be spending hours reading comments about other comments about the commentary on policy. And there is another consensus, apparently, for those editors who seem ready to edit everything in sight, the more the merrier, and talk themselves into believing that "they who post oftenest win".

If that comment seems a little unkind, please bear in mind that"humour" is not banned from WP, and irony is allowed a person. So, this editor will continue to watch this page, but really, would rather be editing in mainspace, and not be re-re-reading proposals about proposals etc. that, in the main, simply sprout words that just echo, and echo, repeat, ditto. Which of these consensuses is secondary, who knows, and if there is a secondary, which then is primary?

That having been said, the current version looks reasonable enough, I wont quote it, as its likely to be changed by the time I finish typing this post. And User:Centrx has a good point; IAR is ignore rules, so "more rules" being added to the page is a non sequeter.Newbyguesses - Talk 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusion / redundancy

The so-called "consensus" version misses the spirit of the policy and confuses first-time readers - it suggests that if the rules would prevent one from *using common sense or building consensus*, then they should be ignored. Well, not quite. Use of IAR is more often than not against *some* consensus (because it's best used for radical solutions) and nothing prevents one from using common sense at any time. The point is to ignore rules when the prevent one from *improving or maintaining Wikipedia*. The bits about common sense and consensus are already covered by other guidelines - including them here causes to miss the point, so I had to trim down the irrelevant parts. Миша13 07:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the version you list is confusing. I thought the consensus version was If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. which is to the point. --PopUpPirate 09:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

So ignoring rules and ignoring consensus is fine when you feel your "radical solutions" are best? Glad to have this view out in the open. Haukur 11:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm as stunned as you are. It's weird that I'm arguing against someone who reverted to my preferred wording, but this rationale is unacceptable. —David Levy 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument. Are you suggesting that it isn't okay to ignore a rule when following it would defy common sense? Are you suggesting that the situation never arises? Of course nothing prevents us from using common sense at any time. That's what the policy indicated.

I, like Haukurth, am troubled by your assertion that WP:IAR is something to invoke for the purpose of imposing "radical solutions" by defying consensus. On the contrary, most applications (not invocations) of the policy should go largely unnoticed. When noticed, a proper application should be uncontroversial. (Otherwise, it probably wasn't a good idea.) —David Levy 12:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Then there's the times when an application will even be controversial, but anything else would have probably been even more controversial (which is typical in certain kinds of emergency or less bad but still no-one-ever-thought-about-that-but-we-need-a-solution-yesterday kind of situation) --Kim Bruning 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, if the situation itself is controversial, that's unavoidable (even when working within the rules). But the correct course of action usually should be relatively uncontroversial (or at least no more controversial than the alternative). If an edit defies consensus, it probably isn't a good idea. If the consensus is wrong, it probably still isn't a good idea to defy it (because edit-warring doesn't help the project). Working toward a new consensus is far more productive. —David Levy 12:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a lot of opposition to IAR is when someone does something stupid, and tries to laugh it off as IAR... and does so towards newbies who hadn't heard of IAR before and don't know better. It's that kind of combination that gives wikipedia a bad name. Can't we think up some extra-special punishment for people who do that? On the other hand, then there'd be a bunch of bureaucrators who'd try to apply that rule to us normal wikipedians as well. Hmph. I guess we'll have to stick to just explaining properly to people every time things go south. :-/ --Kim Bruning 12:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Recent Pages patrol, New Pages patrol, and now, IAR patrol! I'm telling you, we should have an IAR noticeboard. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Chardish' "Triple c" rewording

Nice. I like it. --User:Krator (t c) 00:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And it's easy for new editors to understand. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

We lost "maintain" again.  :( —David Levy 00:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added it in. I wonder if this version will stick... —David Levy 00:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoops; my mistake. I knew it felt like I was forgetting something. Anyway, I'm glad you all like it! - Chardish 02:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 said that the current version deviates from what the policy means; I disagree - after all, Jimbo says it's designed to prevent wikilawyering, and you can't prevent wikilawyering unless you say that common sense and consensus can trump the rules. - Chardish 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Good grief

There is no reason to over-specify or over-explain IAR. We already have a page for that. The 12 word version is best. We are explaining to death something that does not need explaining. [3]

• Common sense is common sense. There is no common sense. The 12 word version is common sense!
• "Content" is an ambiguous and vacant term. There is a lot more to Wikipedia than "content".
• Consensus, while of the utmost importance, must occasionally be challenged. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that groupthink and "wiki-panics" never occur, and no groups here, even small ones, ever make collective errors. In any case, IAR is one of the five pillars, and all of this other stuff is elucidated quite well on that page, which gives the proper context of IAR. No need to be redundant here. heqs ·:. 14:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at other policies on Wikipedia. Note how they all explain themselves quite well, even though the policy itself could be summed up in a paragraph. This aids understanding for new editors. Anyway, let's look at your points: 1) There is "common sense", despite what that essay you linked to says. If an particular course of action has more than a niche opposition, it's common sense. I don't think there should be some metric for determining how large of a consensus constitutes "common sense," because I think it's common sense what common sense is. Furthermore, the twelve-word version is not common sense - a large number of editors have expressed that it is unnecessarily arcane. (Never mind the fact that your two arguments there contradict each other.) 2) Content is hardly an ambiguous term - talk pages and process pages are not content; everything else is. 3) There are some circumstances where consensus should be ignored, yes, but that's why ArbCom exists. 4) This page should give the proper context of IAR; editors shouldn't have to do research to locate it. If there is fault of redundancy, it is in the other pages that talk about IAR. - Chardish 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

1. I disagree. Common sense is far too subjective, as explained in that essay.
2. Does IAR never apply to process and talk? Ignore all rules means ignore all rules. Not some of them, in some places, some of the time, but whenever "they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia."
3. That seems rather legalistic and arcane. Plenty of anti-consensus actions and issues resolve themselves well before arbitration.
4. IAR is a foil. I wouldn't characterize the 12 word version as arcane so much as unique. If there is one policy that should not have to explain itself, this is it. Apply IAR to IAR. Let's not neuter it by wrapping it policy-speak. heqs ·:. 16:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How has the longstanding wording of this policy failed us in the past? Sancho 16:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Through hundreds, if not thousands of editors failing to understand what IAR means. - Chardish 16:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I mean, what were some specific results? Were the problems resolved without rewording of this policy? I don't have the most experience, so I'm a little ignorant in this area, but I haven't seen an inappropriate application of IAR that wasn't quickly corrected by consensus. Sancho 17:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually true. IAR is commonly used as a way for experienced editors to win arguments against newer editors. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. From time to time, I check the "What links here" tab and correct some seriously egregious misapplications of IAR. The new wording stops that from happening. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If I may add to what Rockstar said: Confusion caused by a policy is itself a problem, even if there is no lasting damage in the article space. This confusion requires editors to spend their time explaining policy, tradition, and process, and reverting erroneous judgments, rather than focusing on building the encyclopedia. For that reason, confusing policy should be clarified whenever possible. - Chardish 19:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Version storage created

Seems there are 3 or 4 competing versions for this policy. I am new to this discussion and I am having trouble figuring out what is going on. I have created an Info box above the archive box with links to archived copies of the various versions that seem to have gotten some traction. My main intent is to help newcomers to this discussion. However, the talk pages on these archived copies could also be used for fleshing out a particular version. —WikiLen 18:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't fork the policy into "competing versions" in the article namespace. There are far too many variants to list, and all of them already are stored in the revision history (so feel free to link to your favorites). —David Levy 18:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on suggesting forking of talk. All I really want is a way for newcomers to easily see what is at issue. For example, what is the 12-word-version? The "Chardish' 'Triple c' version" was not obvious either and it was a while before I discovered the "expanded version." For newcomers: (WikiLen)

• 12 word version

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.

• Chardish' "Triple c" version

When you edit Wikipedia:

* Follow consensus.

* Improve and maintain content.

* Use common sense.

If the rules prevent any of this, ignore them.

• Centrx's version

If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. Use common sense, follow consensus, and focus on encyclopedic content.

• Expanded version

Too long to post here — see this old revision of the page.

I believe I have the most recent edition of all of these, as of this date. —WikiLen 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Established as consensus?

Consensus so far is limited to

• This policy is meant to apply in situations where rules are wrong. "where rules are simply wrong". —quoting Jimbo (WikiLen) //quote fragment taken out of context, see below heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• This policy is not meant as a means for overriding consensus. (WikiLen) //Will have to move it to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules except consensus then heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Current policy does not do enough to encourage civility. (WikiLen) //Please be more specific heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to know... is it correct that there is a consensus that the 12 word version no longer meets the needs of the community and the need it does not meet involves civility? —WikiLen 08:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In contention

• Utmost brevity is essential for this policy.
• Utmost clarity is essential for this policy - it should explain itself.

As I understand it: (WikiLen 10:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC))

For those new, consensus holds also, since at least this diff, 11 June 2007, for the See also item: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, (which expands on, "What 'Ignore all rules' means"). — Newbyguesses - Talk 15:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I rearranged your words a little bit. I think that brevity is a good thing, but brevity should not come at the expense of requiring other pages to explain the policy. - Chardish 15:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not hold on this version. You have quoted Jimbo out of context and completely mis-framed the debate.

In terms of IAR, it is policy because it has always been policy, not just because of me saying so. It was one of our first rules, and I consider it foundational. We have a huge huge problem with people who do not get that rules-lawyering is bad, that basically being kind and sensible is the bedrock of Wikipedia. So I think this policy is important and furthermore than it causes no problems... certainly it preserves a healthy space for bold action in cases where pretty much anyone can see what the right thing to do is, policy or no policy.

I would support a rewrite and rewording of sorts, so long as it doesn't attempt to change policy but rather attempts to be more explanatory. For example, I liked the old old version which said that if rules make you nervous and depressed, ignore them. Versions which suggest that the meaning is simply that the rules don't cover every possible situation don't seem to me to go far enough, since we also want to cover the situation where the rules are simply wrong.--Jimbo Wales 14:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What we have now is a version that does just that. It contradicts the very title and spirit of the policy. It is no longer "ignore all rules", it is "ignore some rules". Instead of standing on its own as one of the five pillars, it is essentially neutered. IAR is a foil against all rules in those situations when they may be broken/wrong. We are going around in circles here. It's time to restore the 12 words of wisdom. heqs ·:. 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

frm-Wikipedia:Five pillars < Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Find consensus; avoid edit wars >

frm- Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset < When in doubt, take it to the talk page >

frm- Wikipedia:List of policies <Most editing decisions are made by a continually evolving rough consensus among editors >

This covers it; it is unproductive to add rules to IAR. Read WIARM instead.

No consensus existed currently on this talkpage to add extra rules to the page, in particular, no case has been mounted nor prevails to add the unnecessary extra reference to "Consensus" in the See Also. (And it has been removed by a user.) Read any part of the talkpage one cares to, assertions to the contrary in edit summaries to the contrary do not withstand scrutiny — Newbyguesses - Talk 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And just now removed by this user:Newbyguesses - Talk 23:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

...as I was typing my reply here. The link's presence merely reflects the current version of the policy proper. I personally prefer the twelve-word version, but if we're going to reference "consensus," it's important that we link to the page on which the concept is explained. Otherwise, people will impose all sorts of incorrect interpretations. I don't understand why you've left the rewrite intact while removing the supplemental link intended to mitigate its potential harm. —David Levy 00:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really a big deal? I mean, if somebody clicks through to the explanation page, "consensus" is linked there. It's not as if the consensus page is a secret, and anybody reading this page isn't far from that one. It's not as if people aren't more than happy to provide a link to those who don't find it on their own. The page is fine, with or without the consensus link. We've reached a point where stability is more important than the differences we're still debating. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please please please please PLEASE add your comments as separate items, instead of editing what someone else wrote. Not only does it make it seem like you're editing their words, but it makes it difficult to determine who wrote what. I don't even know who to direct this to, since it seems like more than one person has done it in this section alone. - Chardish 00:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page randomization

I have a feeling a lot of you won't take this suggestion seriously, but I think it would be an interesting choice. What we do is, we put all of these different versions of IAR on subpages, and then we make IAR randomized to display one of these links (the effect would be this, though each page would be transcluded). We also put a link to edit that version on it, and each version can grow semi-independently and either coalesce into a unified idea of what IAR is or become contradictory. The only real difference is that instead of changing the page every day (with a lot of petty arguing), its changes every pageload (with less petty arguing, hopefully). So everyone wins. Or everyone loses. At least this perpetual bicker machine is put to a rest. Atropos 21:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What I love about this suggestion is that there's no practical difference between your proposal and how the page is now. Every time I check it on my watchlist I'm greeted by a totally different version. I so happen to have a particular version which I favour over all the others... but would prefer a stable version I'm not totally fond of, rather than it changing all the time. --Deskana (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It's not as if the fate of the wiki depends on this page being kept in the most finely tuned form possible, and it's not as if we're converging to that goal, anyway. All of these versions have their points; let's just stop arguing over what color the bike shed should be, already. The instability is worse than any version on the table. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. POV-forking is not the answer (and certainly would lead to a great deal of confusion).

What frustrates me the most is that some of us from both the "let's leave it at twelve words" camp and the "let's make it long" camp are willing to settle on a compromise version, but even that isn't working out. It's somewhat surreal to experience disappointment when I see that someone has reverted to the version that I prefer. —David Levy 00:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way we can agree to a ceasefire without having the page protected? I guess random people will still come along and add stuff. We can't prevent the page from being edited, so how can we get it to be reasonably stable? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems reasonably stable at the moment. Though I think it's very, very sad that 48 hours without a complete rewrite or a reversion makes me feel like it's "reasonably stable." - Chardish 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is the issue of whether or not to include a link to Wikipedia:Consensus. I'm concerned that its absence will lead to problems when people misinterpret the term's meaning upon reading it in the policy proper. —David Levy 02:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dummy edits?

Why are you guys having a conversation in edit summaries of dummy edits? Why not use the talk page? Is it just impossible to look at the page without hitting "edit"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am using the talk page. Dummy edits are useful to convey information to people who saw earlier edit summaries but might not see the talk page. —David Levy 00:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's true; you are. I'm sorry to imply that you aren't. It's still frustrating to see conversations going on in the edit summary at the precise same time that we're lamenting the page's instability on the talk page. Anybody with the page on their watchlist also has the talk page on their watchlist, unless there's some way to separate them that I don't know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible to view only pages from specific namespaces on one's watchlist, but that isn't my primary concern. My primary concern is that people will read a particular summary in the project page's revision history and not read the corresponding talk page comments (possibly leading them to edit the project page in a manner that they otherwise wouldn't). —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dummy edits also make the page history less useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. They can provide context that otherwise would be buried in talk page archives. Such context often is provided via the summaries that accompany reversions, and this is an alternative that accomplishes the same task without fueling edit wars. —David Levy 01:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, but don't we regularly discourage it in article editing? I hadn't thought of using them purely to place information in the history. Interesting... Off topic, too, I suppose... -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules ...

From Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia does not have firm rules besides the five general principles elucidated here. Perhaps the wording of this policy should refer to the five general principles? Sancho 04:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're ignoring them and following the spirit of IAR, who cares if they're firm? ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess no-one :-). It just seems that ignore all rules really means ignore all rules, but not these five principles... that's what I was trying to say. But yeah, the spirit of the rule would have us still follow the five principles anyway. Sancho 04:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignore all rules doesn't necessarily mean they we can ignore all rules, but rather that we can ignore them if they're preventive us from improving Wikipedia. That said, the rules are necessary to keeping some sort of stability to the project. Because of this, then, the rules, by nature, cannot be firm as they are evolving with the project. The Five Pillars are reaffirming a section of IAR, not the concept as a whole. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

This should probably not be referenced, for the reasons given in the "more changes" section above. Including a link to WP:CON does not mitigate the problem much. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)