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 2007

Linked to an essay

I linked to a brief essay I've been maintaining, Wikipedia: Ignore all uses of "ignore all rules", from this page. I saw that another essay was already linked to, and I removed the tongue-in-cheek material from my essay. The purpose of it being linked to is to point out that IAR is not the "prime directive" of Wikipedia, and that just because IAR exists doesn't mean it should be used all of the time, or even most of the time. I wanted to bring this up here because I have a feeling that if I don't, someone's just going to revert it without saying anything. Cheers! - Chardish 23:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. Look in this talk page's most recent archive, where several essays were commented on in detail, and the What "Ignore all rules" means essay was the one that showed the most consensus support (or the least opposition, perhaps). Until you've demonstrated that your essay enjoys such support, I don't think it's going to stay in the "see also" section.

There's way too much history of this page that you're ignoring. If everyone adds whatever essay they like, it leads to a bad place, every time. Ask around. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Per comments, I think I'll remove the link for the time being. Since the essay wasn't covered on the previous archive's essay discussion, I'd like to ask people to comment on it here and build some consensus whether it should be included or not. - Chardish 02:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not a good essay to link to. It really isn't saying much except "don't IAR". I can think of several better pieces to link to that were discussed earlier on this page. >Radiant< 07:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't distort my words. It says "most of the time, don't IAR." Do you not agree with this sentiment? - Chardish 12:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't, on the basis that knowledge of what the rules are is not a prerequisite for editing here. Indeed, many editors are ignorant of the rules. >Radiant< 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why bother knowing the rules when IAR exists? It can easily be reinterpreted as the hammer to any nail, the driver for any screw, just emphasize or de-emphasize words in the single sentence. Since there is no clarity to HOW to interpret IAR correctly, and no consensus, there is no need to worry about any of the other rules. You will always be able to find support from one faction or another in your implementation of IAR. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• Except that you won't. If you do something stupid, something undesirable, or something against consensus, you'll find yourself reverted and admonished in short order. The allegation that Wikipedia cannot possibly work this way is contradicted by the fact that it has, for several years. >Radiant< 13:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank God someone brought up the Cluocracy. I wish Wikipedia just operated like that. Not all consensus is good; we had consensus to lynch people and burn witches here back in the day. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that somehow you, JzG and other Admins feel perfectly okay doing IAR-like things against consensus rather a lot of the time, and you seem pretty immune to any sort of admonishing, so I wonder how you feel it should really work when folks who strongly disagree with you can't get a word in edgewise about your interpretation of the rules, the consensus, and the practice therein. Does IAR only work to ignore rules when it's you doing it? That would be convenient, wouldn't it? At this point, I'm waiting to see how the ArbComm on BDJ goes, but consider me already driven away. My contribution productivity is practically zero, I don't have the time or inclination to contribute (because I'm pretty sure that my contributions will be semi-randomly removed at some point), and I don't feel like I can make progress against the flow of admin-originated condescension/patronization, or find any way, in-process or out-of-process that will be respected to bring my criticisms/feedback about the way admins are doing their jobs, that's meaningful for all parties involved. Believe me, I'm not a stranger to taking on unpopular, minority opinions, and not a stranger to arguing it ad infinitum, but I also know when I'm outnumbered and when my audience is entirely uninterested in hearing it. As such, I'll be gone in short order. And in case it's not clear, I see the vagueness of IAR as a primary factor in the basely disrespectful, unilateral actions I see admins getting away with here on Wikipedia all the time. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to respond to this. There's over 1000 admins of widely varying viewpoints, so admins reverse each other's actions all the time. People get words in edgewise all the time, that's what we have talk pages for. Concrete complaints are brought up on WP:ANI all the time. Then there's mediation, third opinion, and I've had at least three arbitration cases submitted against me in the past. So the situation isn't nearly as grim as you seem to think. Also, it's not true that people break rules because IAR exists - contrariwise, IAR exists because people break rules.
• Although I'm not involved in the BDJ case per se, I believe it isn't about ignoring rules, but about contradictive rules (Jeff claims to be supported by deletion process, JzG claims support of WP:BLP). The reason Jeff's opinion about Deletion Review doesn't seem to be getting anywhere is because his interpretation of policy is not supported by consensus. Yes, Wikipedia does work by consensus. If you take an unpopular minority opinion, you by definition do not have consensus for that opinion. What exactly do you expect people to do if you repeat that opinion "ad infinitum"? >Radiant< 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think this may partially boil down to a differing opinion about what consensus really means. It seems to me that Wikipedia uses a special meaning of that terminology that, pragmatically, also means supermajority opinion. To me, coming from a background of consensus-driven decision-making, the same cues that you use to make sure you're in the right (i.e. in the majority, in the "consensus") in defending the "consensus" opinion are the ones that to me tell me I'm right to continue arguing. Why? Because in my world, where I grew up with folks who use the standard definition of consensus (wherein majority is NEVER considered to be equivalent to consensus), the lack of 100% consensus, by definition, means that the conversation is not yet over, that there's still progress to be made, and even if you and your posse of 100 admins come through and say, "Absolutely, Radiant! is 100% right in his interpretation of policy X, even though it doesn't say that.", if I disagree, or better, if a few editors disagree, that is most assuredly not consensus.
• When I argue an issue, in good faith, on Wikipedia, I intend that my fellow arguers also argue in good faith, and to me that means letting process/discussion play out in full when consensus is not clear. In almost every case where I've argued a minority perspective, I've done so in good faith when consensus opinion was simply not clear to me. If you'd like to paint minority as not part of the consensus, you can do that, but I think that retooling the definition of the term to fit your agenda is a little bit capricious. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 19:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't say "the minority is not part of the consensus". I said that a minority opinion is by definition not the consensual opinion. A majority opinion may or may not be consensual; ideally a middle ground is compromised on. Aside from that, it turns out in practice that the definition of "consensus" as "unanimity" is good for small groups but unworkable in large groups, as it allows a vocal minority to block every compromise indefinitely by filibustering. >Radiant< 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• As you are fond of saying to other editors, Radiant, you don't appear to get it. In formal consensus-driven decision-making there is no such thing as "filibustering" or "majority/minority" dynamics. In classic, formal decision-making structures (of which, the Society of Friends (Quakers) is a group of about 200,000), these terms are not considered helpful and do not help contribute to or build the consensus. When a consensus is formed, it is composed of all parties who want to be involved, and discussion of the issue continues until all participants agree to abide by the decisions (note this is not the same as agreeing to the decision). While I agree that Wikipedia or the Internet might not be the best place to pursue such a consensus (problems of editors dropping in and out of discussions without notice, and general hostility to that kind of process-decision-making may make the whole idea a no-go from the get-go), I think it may be in Wikipedia's best interest to make it clear that issues of pragmatism force us not to use the formal definition of consensus decision-making when we use the term "consensus" in the context of Wikipedia decision-making. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is precisely the point - Wikipedia or the internet is not a good place to pursue such a consensus. I do believe WP:CON makes that clear. Also, Wikipedia tends not to use the "formal definition" of anything. >Radiant< 07:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• • While I agree with your definition of what consensus is, Malcolm, I think that on Wikipedia it's been established via precedent that near-consensus is equivalent to consensus. In a very small group of people it is feasible to find solutions that please everyone; in an informal collective of thousands of people with wildly differing opinions, it is infeasible. Though I do find it kind of odd that IAR continues to stick around as policy when it quite clearly does not enjoy any form of "consensus." - Chardish 00:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please see my reply to Radiant. I don't agree that only small groups can achieve consensus. The Quakers manage to do it all the time (sometimes through representative consensus) with a total membership of about 200,000 (as of 1988). Per IAR being policy, that's widely interpreted (though not by me) as stemming from an edit comment Jimbo made around 1.25 years ago (I'll dig up the diff if you really want it). --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

The ironic thing is that (unless you're an admin) you won't get anywhere invoking IAR unless there's consensus to do so. Because rules are decided upon by consensus, IAR is clearly meant to be the exception - otherwise consensus would strike or modify the faulty rule. - Chardish 21:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• That's definitely not true. Some of the most notorious people to invoke IAR include Kim Bruning and Tony Sidaway, neither of which is an admin. And yes, if a certain rule is ignored often enough, it is eventually stricken or modified. The point is that our written rules are a description, not a prescription; hence they catch up eventually. Read WP:PPP for an explanation. >Radiant< 17:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, I said you wouldn't get anywhere invoking it. (You can invoke it whenever you want.) Ignoring the fact that this was the third time in recent memory you've misinterpreted one of my posts and refuted the misinterpretation, you've got my curiosity piqued. Can you point me to specific instances where those people have successfully used IAR? - Chardish 00:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
    • And they also do "get" anywhere, yes. Check their contribs logs or their talk pages. >Radiant< 07:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, no, no one "gets" anywhere and no one "invokes" IAR (and if they do they're grossly misinterpreting the policy as well as being total dicks). IAR exists to build the encyclopedia as well as to build the policy and the processes along the way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that is entirely organic in its nature -- it changes every second of every day. This policy reminds of of that: it tells us our rules aren't solid, it stops endless red tape and bureaucracy, it forces us to build consensus, and most importantly, it reminds us we're here for one purpose and one purpose only: to write an encyclopedia. IAR isn't a tool, and it isn't a mechanism. And God knows it isn't a hammer that comes down to win arguments. It's a foundation and a reassurance. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
        • If that's the case, this page needs a serious rewrite that preserves the spirit you mentioned. Right now, it's "policy" to maintain a NPOV, and it's "policy" to cite your sources, and it's "policy" to not use original research...and it's "policy" to ignore all of the above if, in your opinion, they hinder you from developing the encyclopedia. One of these things is not like the others! I think it's okay for IAR to be an official endorsed philosophy, and it probably needs a rewrite, but as it stands, it's completely incompatible with the rest of policy. Wikipedia has succeeded in spite of this incompatibility, not because of it. - Chardish 01:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That last statement you made is interesting. I think it's ultimately a faith statement - one can either believe that our success is despite IAR or due to IAR, but there's no particular evidence for either. Or is there? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
            • It is purely a personal judgment, stemming from my own personal experience of never seeing IAR applied in an instance where it would have helped the encyclopedia. There's also the WP:POINT paradox - if you could prove that WP:IAR were a bad idea by disrupting Wikipedia, then having that proof would improve the encyclopedia, and thus you should ignore WP:POINT and disrupt the encyclopedia. Having refuted IAR, though, your previous action is shown to have been in error, because you cited bad policy to perform it. Thus you haven't refuted IAR...repeat ad infinitum. I doubt this is the only paradox IAR could cause. - Chardish 02:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
              • Fortunately, these paradoxes don't actually happen, or cause problems, because they're based on the faulty assumption that Wikipedia is a system of formal rules, where legalistic and technical thinking makes sense. Part of the point of IAR is "don't think that way". I've seen thinking that way lead many a good editor to grief. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
                • As an aside (though hopefully not too much of one, as I'm responding to Chardish), I actually found a point in time when the policy page actually said most of what I said above: here. Pretty much sums it up, but then again, so does GTBacchus' essay (which is why it's the only one on the project page). Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Slightly back to the original point (and with the added side effect of an indent reset!) - I think the fact that we need an essay linked from the page to explain what the page means - and that we need to debate which essays are acceptable and which aren't - shows that the policy itself needs serious re-tooling. As is, the policy seems needlessly arcane. Why can't we just replace the policy page with the essay itself, if that enjoys consensus and this doesn't? - Chardish 23:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's actually a very interesting point. I suspect that it will be met with the same normal "Leave the project page like it is" argument. But I'm all for it. It's ironic because the spirit of this policy is not difficult to understand, but actual wording makes it much more difficult than it should be. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. Let's give it a try. - Chardish 00:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• I have no objection whatsoever to clarifiying the concept or elaborating on the page. >Radiant< 11:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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

I edited a bit of the above, and moved the old version (and its discussion) to the archive. I tried to take into account the opinions of people who feel that IAR should have no exceptions (though I would still argue that WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA should never be ignored for any reason.) Nonetheless, I think we need consensus if we're going to revise the wording, and the current wording clearly does not enjoy consensus. - Chardish 03:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Hm, looks pretty good to me. >Radiant< 12:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think this is the first time we've ever agreed on something. I'm delighted. :D - Chardish 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have to admit it's quite an impressive synthesis. Kudos; would not object to giving this a try. -- Visviva 12:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I've had a go at revising the intro. I'm not convinced we really need more than that, and I'm not exactly in agreement with some of the extra points, like having to follow the rules most of the time and reading rule talk pages and such. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• I edited the wording again slightly, and did so in a way that incorporates the "classic" wording of the current version. Abu-Fool's version can be found here [1]. - Chardish 22:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • And your old one was here. In fact, you've pretty much returned it to the "classic" version. Now you begin to understand :-) --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Nah, I think this wording is a good mix between the original wording, my wording, and your wording. But that's not really what we should be discussing here. - Chardish 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since it's gone a few days with no negative comments and no objections, I'm going to go ahead and put the revised wording up as the current policy. - Chardish 22:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Nice work. — Deckiller 22:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that we've fleshed it out...

It makes the spoken version of this article grossly out of date. We need to record a new version! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Rules and Guidelines

Strictly per definition, a rule is something that permits no deviation, while a guideline does. One of the things that ignore all rules does is stress that you may deviate from any written statement, so strictly speaking everything written in the project namespace is a guideline (and you could see IAR as merely reaffirming this fact). --Kim Bruning 23:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• "Ignore all rules" is one of the oldest policies on the project. Assuming we want to preserve the name "Ignore all rules", which I think we should (for tradition's sake), it makes sense for the policy to discuss rules, not guidelines. Splitting hairs about 'guidelines' is not only Wikilawyering (which IAR makes impossible), but it also makes the policy confusing to newcomers (as they may assume IAR applies only to guidelines, and not to policy.) - Chardish 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's splitting hairs at all. At the end of the day there's a yawning chasm between a guideline, which is a voluntary process you may follow, and a rule, which something where non-compliance leads to punishment. Statements like Consensus Can Change and Ignore All Rules in different ways stress that the english wikipedia only really uses guidelines.

There are community-dynamics reasons why hard rules are Not A Good Idea on wikipedia.

At the end of the day, declaring IAR to be policy is what is meant to drive that point home hard with a clue by four... and yet now this page states that there are rules to follow. (Though I can see that the intent is good. )

So how do you suggest we stress that every page in the project namespace is about guidelines (as per the dictionary definition)? --Kim Bruning 00:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC) I've been told off for using Jargon too (see the whole "vote" vs "poll" debate), so I don't think others should be exempt. :-)

Wikipedia has rules; they are not, as you described, "hard rules." Nonetheless, that does not make them any less actionable, and if someone wants to ignore them, they had better have a very good reason for doing so, one that is backed by consensus. What you are suggesting would reduce the page to "Wikipedia's rules are all just suggestions;" they are not. - Chardish 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"They had better have a good reason" you say. So what happens if someone does something that is not mentioned in the guidelines? --Kim Bruning 00:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC) Hmm, googling for a thesaurus, I do see a synonymous relationship with one definition of rule: "a principle or condition that customarily governs behavior"; but I find no such relationship with suggestion.

You use common sense when dealing with it. - Chardish 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I certainly don't disagree in the general case of course :-). However, as a response, doesn't that get pretty close to some sort of circular argument? (see:Wikipedia_talk:Use_common_sense#About_this_page for why). <scratches head> --Kim Bruning 01:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Consider this: Pages labelled policy are thought to be more essential to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", which is part of IAR and required for it. That does not mean that everything in the policies is necessarily essential for "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" or that one must follow policies to the letter in order to be following IAR. —Centrx→talk • 01:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes

While some of the points added to the page are rather innocuous and simply helpful, and other changes merely add unnecessary complexity, there are some specific changes to this page that serve to add rules to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, specifically:

• By stating that readers should "familiarize yourself with the rules as well as the underlying philosophies behind them", as though the purpose of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules was to require people to know "the rules" rather than to allow people to focus on creating an encyclopedia instead of learning the minutiae of the rule cathedral (don't forget to "Read the talk pages about the rules" too!).
• By referencing Wikipedia:Consensus above all the elements more essential to "improving or maintaining Wikipedia", such as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, or the fact that supposed "consensus" is not all-dominant force that can magically convert Wikipedia from an encyclopedia to a sports betting parlour--which should not all be added.
• By stating that the mere reason for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is that "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines cannot account for all possibilities" as though IAR is only about some special cases where the rule writers did not think if a particular contingency (don't forget to read all the rules so you know if the rule writers missed this contingency!)

See revision. Also, rather than reverting on a point of procedure, you should actually justify what you think is correct about these lines. The previous version, the long-standing consensus version, remains by default when there are such errors in the new version of which you refuse all correction. —Centrx→talk • 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, the longstanding aversion to instruction creep on this page is not without merit, and several other of the points newly added duplicate each other and are unnecessarily verbose. Others simply need to be reformed to be more accurate. Also, some of the proposal seems to have been created under the assumption that IAR is "Disregard all rules" rather than "Ignore". —Centrx→talk • 05:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, reading rule talk pages is getting really silly. If people want to cite something to tell others that they are "misunderstanding" IAR and not ignoring rules "properly", they can use WP:WIARM or WP:IAUIAR. I see no reason to give official blessing to any of this. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more like it. It's short and contains no jargon or complex conditions. I hope it's not too much that I've added on the this to it, which completes the "trifecta". I don't see a need for much more than that. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think your addition was good and that this is a reasonable version. Haukur 17:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I think the reason people have so many different and wildly varying ideas about what IAR means and what its purpose is is because the policy has been too vague and arcane - it is an apparent paradox; and you cannot introduce a paradox into the official policy of anything and expect people to walk away with the same interpretations of what it means. I believe that this is the major obstacle towards transforming IAR into a policy that people can understand, without contemplation, analysis, or, worst of all, eisegesis. In reference to Centrx's three main points:

1. IAR was never meant to be a substitute for the rules, or there would be no rules. Unfamiliarity with the rules in the short term is understandable, but in the long term is barely defensible. That is why the longer version said that familiarity with the rules should be achieved over time.
2. Consensus is the basis for all rules on Wikipedia - it does not govern the behavior of individual editors, though. The point of the references to consensus was mainly to state that Wikipedia has no constitution. I don't see how it could be derived from that wording that Wikipedia is a "sports-betting parlour" - consensus is what determines the rules. NPOV is policy because it enjoys consensus.
3. This last point has validity, though I believe that is one large reason why IAR does exist - to prevent lawyering by referring only to existing rules.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that, based on the straw poll available in this page's archives, it's fairly clear that the then-current wording, which is very similar to the wording that now appears, does not enjoy consensus (nearly half of the editors involved opposed it.) I am done reverting, and I look forward to the continuing discussion on revising the policy. : ) - Chardish 22:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

1. IAR is not a "substitute" for the rules; it characterizes the rules and their low importance in relation to the actual business of creating an encyclopedia. All of the basic policies are common sense for any intelligent person who knows what an encyclopedia is. Most editors do not read these policies, many editors do not even know they exist, and that is quite alright; reading "the rules" is not necessary to be a productive editor of Wikipedia.
2. NPOV is actually a Foundation issue, so no, "consensus" does not trump it. In general, consensus cannot change Wikipedia into a not-encyclopedia. If some people want to make something that is not an encyclopedia, such as a sports-betting site, separate projects/new websites are created. Consensus is meaningless if there is not some reasoned basis on which to make a decision. Anyway, if you want to disagree, your position is irrelevant to IAR.

—Centrx→talk • 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Wording is disputed?

You generally know that the wording of something is disputed if there has just been a recent edit. Isn't the tag a bit redundant? --Kim Bruning 22:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Silence equals consent." This discussion could go on for quite a while, and it's good to let people know that it is going on, even if no changes are being made to the page. - Chardish 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the new way that introduces it just slightly, as it kind of touches on what the real intent behind the anti-policy is - that we are not all-knowing and all-seeing, and that as such, the rules can't cover everything. I also like that it encourages people to use their best judgement. That puts a little assumption of good faith into the policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand why a scuffle over wording, rather than the substance of the policy, requires a tag. -- Visviva 08:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

More clutter

Removed it. Again. Too fat. --Tony Sidaway 01:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How does this change reflect any sort of consensus established on this page? - Chardish 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The page has been like this for a long time; that is a lot of consensus. It has also been discussed at length on the talk page. Consensus does not magically disappear when a proposed version has a few days with a handful of me-too supports. —Centrx→talk • 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. I didn't even realize that the above was a proposal to replace the actual policy's wording. (I thought that it was to be a separate page.) —David Levy 02:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

a lot of consensus Hardly. The edit by Jimbo intimidated people for a while and a few guardians of this page have reverted most changes but that doesn't mean there's consensus for this version. Haukur 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. - Chardish 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It might be more precise to say that this is the version which the greatest number of editors can live with. In practice on the wiki, that is generally what consensus means; not something everyone is happy with, but something a working supermajority are willing to accept. I think we have an essay about that somewhere...

There have been several recent attempts to change and enhance the page, with different groups involved each time; but it is significant that the page keeps coming back to something much like the present version. For my part, I think this recurrent BRD cycle is constructive in itself, even if it never actually adds so much as a comma to the "default" version of the page. -- Visviva 11:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrx, since you keep on stating that the short version has consensus, I am interested in hearing your opinion on my point that this page does not enjoy consensus due to clearly divided opinions in a recent straw poll. I'm restoring the "disputed" tag, since there are clearly a number of people who like other versions. - Chardish 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I already responded to your actual arguments above. Decisions on Wikipedia are not made by polling; you need to justify with reasons (not to mention most of the people who oppose IAR would also oppose your reformulation of it). —Centrx→talk • 05:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in effect, you're saying "The page holds consensus even though 40% of people don't like it." Rubbish. Polling is not a way to make decisions, but it is a valid way to determine the opinions of editors. - Chardish 11:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

• Don't care—fat or skinny, doesn't matter to me. She's a beauty either way. — Deckiller 02:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be fair to say that any change to the wording of this policy is unlikely to prevail for long unless there is a very broad agreement to it. --TONY SIDAWAY 10:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that this rule is pretty much solid? Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, sorry if I was unclear. What I actually meant to say was "any change to the wording of this policy is unlikely to prevail for long unless there is a very broad agreement to it." --TONY SIDAWAY 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was not at all shocked to find the extra sentence shot down, though I was expecting almost the opposite reason. To find myself on the "fat" end of the cruft spectrum is a bit of a surprise. Ah well. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me like that's just a misunderstanding of the policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice fonts. Say, what's gotten into you today, anyway? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Just beginning to understand IAR, I suppose. Kim's been right all along. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, everyone behave eh? :-). Hmmm, so are there any creative ways to edit that won't get reverted today? --Kim Bruning 21:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverting is the new black. Speaking of which, I still like your black box the best... why not make the page pretty? So many Philistines in this talk page. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely love that new signature. --Deskana (talk) 22:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty rad, right? Rockstar (^T/_C) 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Bloody hell. Where's Kibo's signature when you need it. --74.100.225.24 23:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)