Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Our policies and guidelines as opposed to Meatball

I undid this edit[1], because Wikipedia uses its own policies and guidelines, not the advice of sites unrelated to Wikipedia. While I know some people think the advice on meatball wiki is good, our own policies and guidelines better reflect how we the community do things. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. It seemed that people wanted to involve policies and guidelines, so I tried to compromise and find a sane wording.

. The point of IAR is that you are ignoring the rules in the first place. So saying that the ultimate decision is... the rules... is of course rather nonsensical.

Still, you might want to state some locations where you can get ideas on what to do, especially when policy has failed. However, especially in situations where those policies and guidelines have failed, advising people to seek advice in ... policies and guidelines... is once again not particularly enlightening.

Now in such a situation, perhaps there are half-formed ideas on what to do to be found on policies, guidelines, and essay pages, sure. Also sometimes there are polls or discussions that can help. A really great source that I have often used are Wardwiki and Meatball. Especially Meatball can sometimes cover situations that have been encountered on other wikis, but not on en.wikipedia yet.

So all these are still good things to look at first. So I'd prefer to advise people to look at those locations first. This seems to me to be common sense. Advising the opposite course of action of just randomly trying stuff, and getting into massive amounts of trouble, does not seem to be very good advice.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The statment "...with policies and guidelines representing well-established consensuses" is true. Perhaps it has a place here?--Hu12 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical (see also the next 2 edits in history). I'm willing to listen though! :-) Please Explain? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2 cents

After reading the discussion here, I strongly believe this page should be a guideline. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules#suggested_re-write.2C_provisional.2C_by_newbyguesses. The proposed revised version of this and IAR may just address that.--Hu12 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

The merge suggestion is valid, but premature I think, User:Misza13. There is focussed discussion occurring at the discussion page for IAR, and only two longer drafts are in contention a this time. Let's debate their merits, before muddying the water with attempted Merge. --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:54, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The merge discussion is Wikipedia_talk:Understanding_IAR#Merge.
Its a day old essay, albeit a fine essay, but a merge discussion is premature. WIARM is on point and preserves the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. If any merge into WIARM discussion to is to take place, its this discussion. That proposed version of IAR-WIARM puts the rule in context, preserves and compliments the spirit of the rule while giving it simple context and meaning. proposed version of IAR-WIARM contains every thing already agreed on through previous consensus, except that is on the same page. Changing the 12 words will most certainly not happen, That proposal does not change the 12word version of IAR nor does it change WIARM. proposed version of IAR-WIARM supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM. It addresses all the concerns, withought the uncertainty of "new" content or the drama over variation in the "12 words", or the introduction of a new essay.--Hu12 (talk) 01:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think changing the 12 words is a realistic goal now that UIAR is available.--Father Goose (talk) 04:34, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I would encourage keeping the "12words" at this time, probably for some time, as there are so many users with it preferred. Maybe at the top of WIARM, but best at IAR. That looks like this page. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I won't be pushing to change it right away, but I think it is a promising contender around which a new consensus could form. The 12-word version looks pretty inadequate stacked up to it.--Father Goose (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked

Contains every thing already agreed on through previous consensus, except added the 12 words of WP:IAR, placed existing text to their respective sections.--Hu12 (talk) 09:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the time has come to propose that this page be promoted from "supplemental essay" to actual policy. Time and again there have been suggestions that this page ought at least to be a guideline, but that has been patiently postponed.

Time and again every single word of WP:WIARM has been discussed on talk:IAR, with never a fault found.

Currently, with the 12words at the top, WIARM would make effective policy. WIARM in this present state could actually go up on the IAR page. That is my suggestion, to be discussed.

No-one has ever deprecated WIARM, other than stating that it "is only an essay".

Discuss? --Newbyguesses - Talk 21:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to still be able to edit and maintain it and keep it current? O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WIARM has received some editing, not a lot. It has been pretty stable. Much the same as at IAR itself, except there are flurries of editing over there, but it still ends up "stable". Not at all a black and white situation. --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I admit to slight hyperbole for clarity. :-) (although it is more true than I would like it to be) --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the shortcoming of WIARM is its overall structure. It's a list of examples of how to use and not use IAR; that is useful, and they are good examples, but it still doesn't do a very good job of explaining the rationale behind IAR or giving practical advice on how to use it.

WIARM is better than the bare 12 words on IAR, but policies should be described in generalizations, not a list of specifics, as pointed out in Wikipedia:How to create policy#Role of examples. (Also read the advice given in Wikipedia:How to create policy#General recommendations.) A list of examples of what to do and not to do is not a good way to convey the spirit behind a rule.

Now, I did write UIAR and am thus an advocate for it, but I think it is a much fuller expression of IAR than WIARM manages to be. It doesn't have the rigid permissions and prohibitions that WIARM describes. That is exactly what you don't want in a policy called "Ignore all rules".--Father Goose (talk) 04:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, be aware that just because people haven't edit-warred over an essay doesn't mean that it has consensus support or represents a consensus view. Every page exists in its own bubble of approval -- even IAR and WIARM do not share the same bubble.--Father Goose (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR as compared to RPG's / TF2V

When I was a kid I participated in many Role Playing Games (like D&D) as both a player and referee/game-master (GM). A particular favorite of mine was a comedy-themed game called "Tales from the Floating Vagabond" (TF2V) and included in the rulebook was an ultimate rule which read (approximate quote from memory) something like "The Bartender [The GM] has the right to modify or ignore any rules at will IF it will make the gameplay funnier."

Not only do I see this as equal to the IAR policy in both form and purpose but I also see another similarity relating WP:IAR to RPG's. From time to time one or more people would join a game who were experts on the rules of whatever game was being played. Such players were known as "rule-lawyers". They would argue minutia with the GM to the point of consuming massive amounts of time intended for play, and generally pissing-off both the GM and fellow players. In his effort to be "by the book" such a rule-lawer would defeat the purpose of the game itself.

WP is not a game but it does have a purpose. Editors in WP who insist on being rules-lawyers and allowing "no exceptions" may defeat the purpose of WP which is to be an encyclopedic collection of knowledge .. that is to say a comprehensive collection. Low Sea (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

"You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia."

Considering that contributing to a page with anything besides plain-text requires researched knowledge on apostrophes, brackets, and equals-signs, is it so much to ask that people take a glance at WP:NOT before they make a fresh candidate for WP:AFD? --38.100.221.66 (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but it's not so much to let them make those mistakes, learn, and become better contributors. An extra AfD doesn't cost anyone anything, and it might help many people understand how Wikipedia works. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:IAR?

WP:IAR? needs to be input as WP:IAR%3F when put in the address bar. This needs to be clear to users. See WP:NCTR#Question mark for more information. Dragon 280 (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that is a very uncommon way of accessing the page, compared to wikilinking, using the search/go bar, or using an external search engine.--Father Goose (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My compliments

to everyone who is responsible for this essay. The points it makes are essential to a clear understanding of Wikipedia, and as far as I know are not set forth anywhere else. The quotation from Bringhurst is perfectly apt. Well done, all. — Dan | talk 19:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I just read it; yeah, it's great. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Exceptions

Do we need an exceptions section? For instance, if you are blocked, should you IAR to evade the block to improve or maintain Wikipedia in an area unrelated to your block? —Ashley Y 19:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not? Will anyone notice? Will it hurt the project?

I dislike the idea of naming "exceptions". That sounds legalistic, as if IAR is a rule. It's not; it's an anti-rule. -99.182.24.204 (talk) 16:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Even anti-rule-flavoured rules can have exceptions. —Ashley Y 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is that a rule? — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It says, "in situation X, do Y". So you can claim it's the magic anti-rule or whatever, but it can certainly have exceptions. —Ashley Y 21:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Why not answer the anon's concrete questions? To wit: "Why not? Will anyone notice? Will it hurt the project?" (Full disclosure: that anon was actually myself, not logged in.) -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC) (True dat)

Well, if you look closely, you'll see that I asked this question first. Is your answer "yes, you should evade a block to improve or maintain Wikipedia in an area unrelated to your block" or "no, you shouldn't"? —Ashley Y 21:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked rather closely. I read each word, repeatedly, in various orders. I answered your question with a question (3, actually). I find that to be a valid way of communicating, because it asks you to examine some of the underlying ideas behind your original question. I would say that it's pathologically stupid to claim to have rules which are de facto unenforceable. If an action will not be noticed as a block evasion, then claiming that it must not be done is pathologically stupid. I would say that conceiving of Wikipedia in terms of rules hurts the project, and therefore should not be done, per everything that makes any sense.

Yes. Evade a block to improve Wikipedia. Fuck, yes. To do otherwise would be pathological stupidity. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

An action might be noticed as a block evasion. —Ashley Y 01:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it might. In that case, whoever notices it would be in a position to make a decision. I hope they would consider the encyclopedia as a whole, and not rules in the abstract in that case. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There really can't be exceptions to "ignore all rules" - however - these explanatory essays emphasize "use your best judgement" and "respect consensus whilst trying to redefine it" and "respect other editors". If you have been blocked, almost by definition you should be questioning your own judgement and in many cases the quality of your respect for other users. There are many avenues for blocked users to flag up problems (which don't need to be listed here), rather than invoking an "exception" which allows them to act directly. IAR has no exceptions - but it's intended for good-faith contributors who wish to work with the community, not for those looking for loopholes. Additionally, (to use a well-worn phrase) IAR is not a suicide pact. Franamax (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

So if I read you correctly, you should not improve or maintain Wikipedia by evading a block? That looks like an exception to me. Alternatively, if IAR doesn't apply to those "looking for loopholes" or those who aren't "working with the community" (by some unexplained standard), well, those are also exceptions. —Ashley Y 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Curiously enough, IAR used to be more explicit about working with the community ("working with others" was the text). But apparently that interfered with IAR's perfect brevity, so it was excised. —Ashley Y 23:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No-oo. IAR is descriptive and definitely not prescriptive. It outlines no specific course of action on the lines of "If X, then do Y". It neither prohibits nor compels you to evade a block. There are tons of other rules, and IAR (by longstanding convention) overrides all of them, and is also (by longstanding practice and experience) subordinate to each. There simply is no easy way to explain it, and especially no easy way to codify it. Franamax (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely correct. Reading IAR - "just reading the text" - as "if X then Y" is a good way of actively missing the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm just reading the text here. X is "a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia", and Y is "ignore it". I think the rule against evading blocks is an example of this X? —Ashley Y 23:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What rule against evading blocks? Is that something unenforceable that we've made up just now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Since you prefer to see Wikipedia as not a "rule-based context", let us consider it like this: there are various behaviours that may incur sanctions, and there are various pages ("policies") that outline what these behaviours are and what the likely sanctions are. Evading a block is one such behaviour, since WP:EVADE says that one may have one's block extended for doing so. Yet in the case when one evades to improve or maintain Wikipedia (such as in an area unrelated to the block), IAR advises one to ignore this "rule". Is that good advice? Or does IAR not apply in this situation for some other reason? —Ashley Y 01:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR neither "applies" nor "does not apply". Those are lawyer ideas. If someone is blocked for some reason, and can improve Wikipedia anyway, then I hope they'll do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

(undent a bit) That is prescriptive to a degree - but (shaky grammar parsing here), X is an indefinite clause; and Y is certainly indefinite - "ignore it" prescribes no further action, and the explanatory essays indicate that "ignore it" is not a waiver for any action you then decide on. The key bit though is improve or maintain, which is necessarily left vague, and is hugely misinterpreted as either free license or "at that exact instant, I was certain they were all racists so I had to act as the sole defender of The Truth to protect my people who the whole world wants to destroy". Again, IAR is intended for good-faith editors willing to listen to reason and adapt their methods. It's equally intended for new editors as a spur for them to be bold in their edits. It is not intended as an avenue for editors determined on a single-minded course to justify their actions ex post facto or to rationalize actions which their honest introspection would reveal to be misguided. Deciding to evade a block is one of those things - you should first be figuring out why you were blocked and determining to change your course, if you do that well, you will get unblocked and you can proceed. Deciding instead that your block was unfair, or there is a cabal, or there is some wiki-situation so compelling that you simply must evade your block is outside the entire spirit of IAR - it just doesn't apply then. Franamax (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It neither applies nor doesn't apply. That's something rules do. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's perfectly possible to improve or maintain Wikipedia by evading a block if it's in an area unrelated to the block. So given that, surely IAR is a waiver for this action? The X is fulfilled, the consequent Y is "ignore the rule", thus IAR allows you to evade the block?

You can say that IAR only applies to good faith, and good faith does not include evading blocks even to edit in a different area, but, well, that's an exception too. —Ashley Y 23:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

IAR is not a "waiver" for anything, because "waivers" exist in rule-based contexts, and Wikipedia is not one of those. You seem to be actively missing the point of IAR, which is, "stop thinking that way." Do things that help, and don't do things that hurt, full stop. Stop thinking like a lawyer, and learn to discourage others from thinking like lawyers.

No "exceptions", no loopholes, no rules. An encyclopedia. Build it. That's not a rule; it's a raison d'etre. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"Do things that help, and don't do things that hurt, full stop." - that's great, but that's not what IAR says. Now you can play around with ideas like "anti-rule" and "no loopholes" and all that other wonderfully bracing "spirit of Wikipedia" stuff, but in the end IAR is a piece of text that purports, at the very least, to give advice. That's what policy is for, is it not?

So let's look at a particular situation, and the advice IAR recommends. Someone has been blocked for some reason, and they wish to evade that block to improve or maintain Wikipedia in an unrelated area. IAR says that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you may ignore it. So it seems to me that IAR is advising one to feel free to evade the block. Is that good advice? —Ashley Y 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that my suggestion to see Wikipedia as a non-rule-based context is somehow cute or silly or "wonderfully bracing". I wonder why. I'm deadly serious, and you seem to be condescending. Why condescend? Please answer this question. Please.

Evading the block to improve Wikipedia is a Very Good Idea. I think everything I've said here has pointed in that direction, while simultaneously suggesting that putting that idea in rules-language actively hurts the project. Please stop actively hurting the project by putting things in rules-language. Please.

As for whether policy is for giving advice... meh. Policy is what it is. I'd say it's more about defining and describing than about advising. The fact that the form of the sentence looks like a rule is part of what we're asking people to get over and see past. Why don't you want to do that? Why? Please answer this question. Please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I rather object to the idea that I am "actively hurting the project" with discussions on the Talk page. This is something that rather worries me. I think it's healthy to discuss unusual situations with regard to what the pages say. I might find some of your ideas ridiculous but I do not for a moment doubt your good faith.

I do see Wikipedia as having rules, after all, even IAR says "rule", so it must be referring to something when it says it can be ignored. But my point is is that it doesn't matter. Let's forget about the whole concept of rules, if you prefer. But, it does mean something for a page to be a policy. What is that? WP:POLICY explains this, without even using the R-word:

"Policies are considered a standard that all editors should follow, whereas guidelines are more advisory in nature."

"should follow" - that sounds like advice at the very least. "advisory" - that sounds exactly like advice. If it's merely "defining and describing", it's defining and describing things we should follow. It might not be absolute or final or perfect, and it should certainly yield to improving and maintaining and so on, but there is some level of advice there. The policy pages communicate some kind of idea of good Wikipedian behaviour, some idea of what "improve or maintain" might mean.

So what of IAR? It loosens the bounds of this idea rather than tightening them, so in that sense is an "anti-rule". It reminds people that improving and maintaining is itself more important than the policies that merely attempt to communicate that goal. So far so good. Now let us consider my unusual situation, since I believe it is through examining unusual situations that we shed better light on the policies:

Person P is blocked for something relating to subject area A. They then believe you when you say they should evade the block to improve Wikipedia in unrelated subject area B. This evasion is noticed. An admin then extends the block.

So Wikipedia has been improved, and P has been punished. Two questions: did the admin behave within the bounds of consensus-expected admin behaviour in extending the block? And did you (or IAR) give good advice to P? —Ashley Y 02:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, "actively hurting the project" might be overstatement, unless you're actively encouraging others (by example) to think of Wikipedia as rules-based. If you are, then I stand by my statement.

I absolutely do not doubt your good faith, and never have. I probably never will doubt your good faith. I hope I have not given the impression that I doubt your good faith - it's not clear to me why you brought up the idea of doubting good faith. You don't need to be acting in bad faith to hurt the project. It's called "error", and we all make them.

It seems that you are very attached to the idea of policies as somehow prescriptive. I know that many of our policies are phrased in advisory and prescriptive manners, and I think this is a bad error which actively hurts the project. That sentence you quoted from WP:POLICY is terrible, and should be altered, IMO. I am prepared to explain in detail why I believe that, if that would help. It is certainly what I was thinking when I wrote the initial version of this page, which seems to enjoy consensus support.

Now, speaking to your hypothetical situation: the idea of "punishing" person P is directly contrary to our blocking policy. Blocks are never punitive, but always preventative. If an admin blocks someone - or extends a block - for doing something that is not hurting the project, then that admin is making a foolish mistake. If an admin issues a punitive block, then that admin is making a foolish mistake. I believe that my advice to go ahead and improve the project is good advice, otherwise I never would have said it, repeatedly and in various wordings. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, the relation between IAR and all the other policy pages is straightforward. The policy pages attempt to communicate a common understanding of what "improve or maintain" means. IAR is pointing out that this attempt is not perfect. —Ashley Y 01:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

"...you may..."

I removed "you may" from the IAR quote, as the policy hasn't had those words in almost four weeks. --an odd name 20:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:TFAR 2008 election

On Today's Featured Article request page WP:TFAR I invoked IAR to list a double McCain/Obama article on election day. The 2 "rules" to be ignored were TFAR rules only: no TFA if the article already had one (Obama), and only one TFA at a time (i.e. only Obama or only McCain).

The main objection to using IAR logic seems to be that using IAR may set a precedent, e.g. we may have to listen to a request to have a triple TFA the next time the UK has an election.

Somebody used the phrase "IAR's should not set precedents" It makes sense to me. Could something like that be put in here?

Thanks for any input.

Smallbones (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Found Wikipedia:Exceptions should leave the rule intact, which is what I was looking for. Smallbones (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge (2)

I have requested that this page be merged into Wikipedia:Ignore all rules because Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is just one sentence and should be expanded. The material in this page would be useful for expanding Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. -- IRP ☎ 04:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You may want to check the IAR archives for all the arguments that I and others have made against this in the past. I really don't think this merge is going to get consensus, and I would rather not repeat myself for the nth time on this matter. Regardless, consensus can change, I don't think it has, but it is always a possibility. Chillum 04:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Having one sentence there and a separate explanation here (and a couple of others, right?) is a pretty ideal setup, as it turns out. Only if the rules were a formal system would it really matter where the explanation is found. That right there is part of what IAR means.

It should seem jarring and counter-intuitive, if you're thinking in terms of rules. What it really means is "stop caring about rules". -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the herb, I would prefer to see some detailed analysis and refutation of the previous discussions before wielding the 'ol copy-paste. Lord knows, the arguments are not hard to find. What's new? Franamax (talk) 02:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

"The herb"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not certain. but I think "the herb" may be one of my nicknames for reasons that are illegal in most countries. Chillum 04:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

;) Don't do it kidz, it rots yer brain! At least that's what I heard at my, um, church group, yeahhh that's it, my church group... :) But seriously, it will make it very difficult for you to actually learn stuff in secondary school, and that's stuff you really need for the rest of your life. Franamax (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I use social studies all the time. Chillum 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Liar paradox

Actually, IAR does apply to itself: if you find the rule depresses you, and gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, then it quite correctly exhorts you to forget itself. Should the offending point be flipped to the what-IAR-means section? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Being paradoxical, I think it is appropriately classified as a "non-meaning," and is a meaningful point about the failings of literal interpretation. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Until it can be explained how a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia can itself prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia then I cannot accept any claim that it is a paradox. It does not tell you to ignore all rules, it tells you to ignore all rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. How can IAR prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Honestly I cannot see how it can be seen as a contradiction unless you stop reading at the title. Chillum 23:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the apparent paradox arises from misunderstanding what the rule means. Hence the explanation belongs under "What 'Ignore all rules' does not mean." Perhaps the explanation could be made clearer, but I don't see much to be gained from belaboring the point—unless it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia.

Perhaps we should ignore it. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the text:

"Ignore all rules" applies to itself: please do not let the idea of not following rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia!

I don't care whether this says what IAR means or what it doesn't mean, but I think this text is not as over cute as what it is intended to replace. — Charles Stewart (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The link rule following is a bit misleading though, since it redirects to Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Taemyr (talk) 23:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Charles, IAR does not apply to itself, it applies to any rule that prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Unless you can tell me how a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from maintaining or improving Wikipedia can itself prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Chillum 00:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

IAR has worked up many editors into a lather, which I take to be energy expended on worrying about policy that might otherwise have been spent improving the encyclopedia. It is nice to be able to say: if the IAR rule bothers you so much, then just ignore it. Maybe that is a better text than what I wrote before. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "liar paradox" line is overly cute, and out of place on the page. However, suggesting that it be reworded and moved to the other section in an attempt to salvage some kind of meaning from it seems misguided. If it's overly cute in one list, it's overly cute in the other, and it's not going to make a valid point in either. If anyone hates it enough to delete it, then there you go. Otherwise, alright. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Cute and silly, yes; but the name of the rule "Ignore all rules" is overly cute. I think the counterpunch has its place. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh.... yeah. That's fair. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

How can this be justified?

• "Ignore all rules" does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule. Blatant copyright violations, for instance, do not make for a better free encyclopedia.

Certainly, the kind of copyright violations which many users commit are not occasions to ignore our rules. But that's different from saying we should never ignore the rule about violating copyright. I would think that the whole reason that we need IAR is that it's impossible to think up every situation in advance and therefore impossible to make rules that cover all situations. If we can't think of every situation in advance, we can't know in advance we will never need to violate that rule. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this goes to the heart of another aspect where this policy is miswritten. There are rules: the anti-edit-warring policy has a sharp rule, WP:3RR with a well defined consequence for violation. If 3RR is not a rule, then human conduct is nowhere constrained by rules. But good luck getting an alternative characterisation of IAR accepted. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone who violates 3RR is blocked. That's ultimately down to admin discretion. Just yesterday, someone broke it, but wasn't blocked because the edit war had already cooled off by the time admins arrived on the scene. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the policy is miswritten. It is simply that this essay attempts to codify details that go well beyond the very simple concept that is the actual policy. If something is not improving or maintaining Wikipedia then IAR simply is not relevant as it only applies to actions that improve or maintain Wikipedia. Chillum 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Codify", huh? That's too bad, because the central message is, more or less, "stop codifying things!" -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It is almost poetic. Chillum 15:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, IAR applies to 3RR too. WP:BLP is exempt from the 3RR. However, BLP doesn't apply to organizations (except when mentioning an individual person while talking about the organization). Despite this, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hunger#Articles_regarding_ongoing_enterprises is a case where arbcom ruled that organizations are exempt from 3RR for BLP-like reasons.

So yes, there is at least one situation where the 3RR must be ignored--arbcom said so.

And I don't think you understand what I'm talking about anyway. I'm complaining about a situation where WIARM states that one particular rule is absolutely never to be violated. The whole idea of IAR is that we can't know in advance when a rule may be inappropriate. So we cannot make absolute statements that some rule should never, ever, be violated--we don't know in advance what strange situation may require violating it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The rule that some rules cannot be ignored should be ignored if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Nothing is codified by this essay anyway. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be okay to rewrite WIARM to take out the claim that it's absolutely inappropriate to ignore the rule about copyright violations, and instead say "this does not make the kind of copyright violations committed by inexperienced users acceptable"? 67.218.38.62 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Improving the encyclopedia

(Continuing from Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules)

The idea that rules are only supposed to be ignored for improving the encyclopedia is wrong. It doesn't describe current practice and in particular doesn't cover ignoring rules in cases of biographies of living people or privacy (or for that matter the recent removal of information to protect David Rohde.

But this page is full of claims that rules may be ignored only for improving the encyclopedia:

• "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both."
• "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged."
• "Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."
• "Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. "
• "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.

It's certainly true that there are minor problems with wording that aren't important enough to fix. But I submit that this is not a minor problem. We stress this incorrect description over and over and anyone who comes to this page without preconceptions would interpret it to mean that rules may only be ignored for the purposes of improving the encyclopedia. In fact, IAR itself claims to be only for improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. Yes, someone with a lot of Wikipedia experience might be able to figure out that it doesn't really mean what it says, but that's a terrible way to write a rule, or even to write an explanation.

This should be fixed so that it corresponds with existing practice. Maybe this will put an end to the endless "you can't invoke IAR to protect someone's privacy/life because protecting someone's privacy/life isn't 'improving the encyclopedia'" arguments. Ken Arromdee (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one could make a good case that protecting the privacy of living people does improve the encyclopedia. Maybe it's not the same kind of improvement as adding sourced content, but protecting the Encyclopedia's reputation and legal position seems to me to be improvement.

That aside, if someone tries to argue that BLP is somehow "not covered" by IAR, then that person is rules-lawyering, and attempting to find technicalities in the "rules". The point of IAR is that there are no rules, no technicalities, no "exceptions". There is an encyclopedia, and there are a lot of people. IAR asks us to be alert. That's it.

If you want to put an end to silly claims of what IAR does or does not "cover", then point out to those people that our rules are not a formal system that "covers" or "fails to cover" any given situation. That's all part of a misconception about how rules work here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Mergers

Common sense

Please see WT:Use common sense#Merge. Thank you.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! All of the redirects and the old "Use common sense" page now redirect to the section on this page.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no common sense

OK, I also just finished merging Wikipedia:There is no common sense into The Use common sense section. As you can tell, most of the information in either essay was basically redundant to each other. Since no one has objected to the original merger, and "There is no common sense" was not really being actively maintained, I don't see this as being too controversial. I'll be happy to discuss it (within reason) with anyone who does object, however.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 10:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To me, it seems redundant, but not harmful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The WP:NOCOMMON essay wasn't "maintained" because it was fine as is, and I've always had it linked at User:Dank/Essays. I don't object to moving the material here, but we need more of it; I'll add the material that was lost in the move later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I'm sure that many have both links used, all over the place as well. The shortcuts all still exist though, and work (they're all direct redirects now), I made sure of that. Out of curiosity, what text was lost though? Aside from the title, obviously... but the text itself all seems intact (to me).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right, it was all there except the first sentence, which we didn't need. Since the message of the essay is "there is no common sense", it seemed slightly out of place in a section called "use common sense"; I gave it its own section, but feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, per the discussion below: feel free to listify or shorten ... I was being conservative keeping the words from NOCOMMON just as they were, since that's a well-trodden essay, but in the context of this page it would probably work better if it were shorter. - Dank (push to talk) 03:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just thinking about the section title issue myself earlier, but I had a slightly different implementation in mind. Therefore, I'm going to "revert" simply in order to show you my idea, and we'll go from there.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Understanding IAR

I started a topic about this at Wikipedia talk:Understanding IAR#Merge. This merger is potentially much larger, and I would like to at least see some consent from interested parties prior to doing it. First, I think that it would be very useful to switch from a list style into a prose style. Most of the content already exists at Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, so a merger will largely entail simple cutting and pasting from there to here. Another aspect to this is that performing a merge will reduce the amount of redundant (and slightly contradictory) information in both essays.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 11:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about departing from the list format. I think the bullet points make for easy-to-read, easy-to-digest, and easy-to-quote principles. Changing them into paragraphs will simply make it less likely that people read and understand the essay. This should be short and sweet; just not as short or as sweet as IAR itself.

I'd like to know what's broken about this essay before we go about fixing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I also do not agree with prosifying WP:WIARM. The present list of succinct, common-sensical statements covers a lot of ground in a manner that is clear and that emphasizes the simplicity of the fundamental principle. When I was learning my way around, I found this essay very illuminating. I also like the WP:UIAR essay and the (formerly separate) WP:UCS essay for their prescriptive recommendations.

My preference would be to keep WIARM and UIAR as separate essays, and to move the UCS section to UIAR instead of here. That way there would be one essay clarifying what it is, and one recommending what to do. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, keeping (most, if not all) of the bullet points makes sense then. I see bullet points and I think my natural inclination is to start removing them, but that's me, and I'm very willing to give in to any defense of their use. As for content itself, the lead at WP:UIAR seems like it would make for a good addendum to the lead here (which is just restating IAR, right now). Having a good lead creates a "hook" to reading the remainder of the essay after all, and I think that we can assume most coming here know the IAR policy itself. The rest of the content is basically the same in both essays, it's just stated slightly differently (with the exception that WP:UIAR includes a poem, which is good for those who are into that sort of thing). Their almost like content forks of each other right now, which isn't really an issue in the Wikipedia space, but it suggests that a merger is likely a good idea (to me at least). Here are some quick details on what I see a merger actually looking like:

• WP:UIAR#The essence of ignorance Since it's all a duplicate of what already is here, this won't be moved.
• WP:UIAR#Why have any rules, then? The points expressed her can be used to "flech out" a couple of the bullet points in the WP:IAR?#What "Ignore all rules" means section. This is the toughest part to deal with, and I was going to leave it for last regardless.
• WP:UIAR#Successfully ignoring rules This could be added as a third level section inside the section, moerging the Bringhurst quote to the new sub-section, and probably performing a bit of copy editing (possibly shortening it).
• WP:UIAR#A poem As stated above, this could just be copied here, to the end of the article. It works for both.

Doing that saves space and brings everyone to the same document to think about and discuss the same topic (Interpreting IAR). I think that it's a good idea, but if anyone really doesn't want to do it then that's OK too.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a case to be made for not letting the page grow. Our goal is succinctness, not WP:TLDR, and there is a very real danger of creeping in that direction. I'm going to stop commenting now, because I think this should be decided based on the input of more editors, and not on more input from the same editor (myself). -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that I can agree on both points... which is actually driving the merge process, in my mind. two very similar documents into one certainly seems more succinct to me. However, I'd be very interested in hearing from others as well, and I'm in no hurry at all anyway. Hopefully everyone just speaks up (without fighting of course. A real argument over this would certainly be WP:LAME).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, as long as they're just essays, the duplication doesn't matter so much (as if they're policy/guideline). There does seem a lot of overlap/duplication, but I'm not really inclined to put much effort into a merger - sorry. Rd232 ^talk 02:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with GTBacchus here -- this is a case where a merger of seemingly similar pages has so far produced a single page with much less clarity than the constituent pages. WIARM is a very concrete approach to explaining IAR, which works well in a list format; UIAR explains IAR in a broad and philosophical manner. Adding some of UIAR's overview material to WIARM has promise, but ultimately the two pages have vastly different characters that do not mesh well.

I also have my doubts about the merger of UCS into this page -- in particular the merger of NOCOMMON along with it, which verges on contradicting IAR altogether, and even contradicts itself -- "Base your arguments on policy... ignore all rules". It also has a ranting tone that detracts from the rest of the page.

There's something to be said for unifying similar arguments into one page. However, so far, this merger has produced a collision, not a unification, in my view.--Father Goose (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No apologies are needed, for sure! :) As I stated above, I'm not particularly tied to the idea of performing a merger, so clear consensus (which seems to be indicated here) not to do so is acceptable and on record. I still don't completely agree, but I hear the arguments against.

@Father Goose, I would say that your view provides a perfect reason to perform some (perhaps heavy) copy editing. Have at it, and we'll see what pieces of pasta actually stick to the wall. If no one actually bothers to challenge what is "law" here, then it becomes stagnant and (eventually) worthless.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand

I don't understand this edit, and in particular, the edit summary: "Ignore all rules is not what enables you to violate office actions either." The edit summary appears to be addressed to the idea that IAR "enables" someone to violate office actions. Where is that found? The fact is that people can, and do, violate Office Actions. They're not "allowed" to, but what that really boils down to is that they'll be swiftly blocked to prevent disruption. Wikipedia is not about Rules, even in the case of Office Actions.

It's about reality, and the reality is that violating an Office Action will get you shit-canned in a hurry. There's nothing inaccurate about saying that, and there is something contrary to the spirit of IAR about saying "you're not allowed" something. Don't think in terms of "allowed". That is the point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your wording, ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that you can violate Wikipedia:Office actions without being blocked very quickly for disruption. That policy is rarely invoked, but when it is, keep your distance.", could be interpreted along the line of "WP:IAR tells me that I can ignore office actions if I am prepared to be blocked for it." While it is true that it's possible to violate office actions provided you are willing to be blocked for it that stems from limitations of the system and not from IAR. Taemyr (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

.Oh and it's really a minor issue. I prefer my wording, but if you don't feel free to revert me. Taemyr (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert you, but I don't see how saying "X does not mean you can Y without Z" is equivalent to "X means that you can Y if you accept Z". In fact, you can violate office actions if you're prepared to be blocked. That's not because of IAR, it's because we're free agents and not automata. In other words, my wording did not say that IAR allows people to be stupid, it just said that IAR doesn't mean you can be stupid without suffering. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I would go slightly further then GT, here. It's somewhat silly to assert that people absolutely cannot do something that they clearly can do, isn't it?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Essay versus supplement

I'm suspicious about the notion that this or any other essay is a "supplement" to any policy. I've switched to the "interprets" form of template:essay, which to my mind is more in keeping with the idea that this is an essay.

Ignore all rules used to get fat and would regularly have to be pruned to its ideal small size; this was because of the wish of some editors to impose their own interpretations on the policy. These essays (this and Wikipedia:Understanding IAR) are a more appropriate expression of those opinions, but we mustn't mistake them for a representation of anything other than the opinions of the authors, shared by some others. The fact that there are two of them should be a clue. If there is a wish to upgrade these essays to guideline status, that can be done by discussion and seeking wide consensus on their appropriate content. --TS 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have two comments. First: In accord with the principles behind this essay, I hope nobody would try to "upgrade" it to guideline "status". That's because I see a fundamental principle behind this essay that the "status" of a page is unimportant. "Promoting" this one would seem a particularly rank hypocrisy.

Second: Very few of our policies and guidelines got to be what they are via a process of "discussion and seeking wide consensus on their appropriate content." That's an old, pre-Web 2.0 model of how new things are implemented, but that's not how Wikipedia's current policy and guidelines actually came to be. I don't see the value in imposing it in some kind of myopic hindsight. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a perennial. Some want this kind of page to be "policy", others want it to buried. "Supplement" is the uneasy truce everyone finally landed at. I'm somewhat loathe to start another round, for some reason ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

rm some misreferences

I just removed a misreference to WP:POINT (the policy does not say what the reference implied). WP:POINT has *three* parts: You need to disrupt, you need to be making a point, and the one must be in service of the other. In fact, practically the only way (and certainly the best way) to violate WP:POINT is to *follow policy to the letter*. If you don't understand why, read it through again, carefully. (I'll help you if you get stuck :-) ). Sometimes workers in occupied countries during WWII would hold strikes where they would follow the policies of the Germans to the letter, as a form of protest. This form of strike was both very effective at shutting down the system, and was very hard to break up for the somewhat rules-oriented occupiers, as no actual laws were being broken.

I'm also rm the link to disruption in our blocking policy, as it sort of seems to imply that all non-"rulecruft"-based edits on-wiki are per-definition disruptive unless they meet some additional criteria.

The opposite is true, of course. All edits made in good faith are just fine.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) (Some might argue: But what if you make a mistake? Well, once someone points out the mistake, you shouldn't be stubborn of course, else you're no longer editing in good faith. And that's the point where people might start pushing you to clean up your act, to put things in gentle terms ;-) .

I pretty much agree with Kim here. WP:POINT concerns attempts to prove a point experimentally and in a disruptive manner. The connection to the text in question was indirect at best. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the current wording is that it may sound confusing, specially for new users. If something can be right even if goind against the wording of a policy, or wrong even if seeming to be supported or allowed by it, then how can they be sure about what's right and what's wrong? Common sense is hardly a good answer: in fact we only use common sense within a limited context. There are concepts within wikipedia that we are familiar with, such as copyright rules, citing sources or keeping a neutral point of view, which are usually unknown for people from outside. For them, common sense may lead to "if it's available in internet, I can use it", "everybody thinks that X is a Y, then the article on X should state he's a Y" or "I heard it somewhere, shouldn't the article say it?", and then they may find confusing later when such edits get reverted.

There should be a link pointing somewhere else where they can find more clarification. If the previous wording or links were not good, we should reformulate the wording or link other better pages. MBelgrano (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What is right or wrong for any given situation at any given point in time is (~ultimately) determined by consensus in cooperation with your peers. Getting reverted, edited, discussed, and corrected is part of that process. How can we clarify this further?

I do agree that we have all agreed to certain basics over time; and rather than repeat the discussion each time, we've documented those agreements, as a matter of convenience. Will WP:5P suffice as a good starting point there? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the way to determine what's finally right or wrong is consensus, we should fix the wording in order to place a link for Wikipedia:Consensus. And yes, the 5 pillars should be linked as well: common sense is allowed but only with the purpose of following them. Building an encyclopedia takes precedence over following rules, but common sense does not take precedense over such building if it leads the user to purposes or actions that fail to follow that ultimate goal. MBelgrano (talk) 12:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, IAR is primarily about consensus-building, but let's not be naive that it isn't also used as an excuse to disrupt, work against consensus, etc.

"follow policy to the letter" Point making can be done while breaking policies and guidelines, especially when following one while breaking another. Hence, it most definitely applies to IAR. It's in See also, which may be enough.

The removed link to Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption would be helpful to re-incorporate, as it briefly touches upon the multiple behavioral policies and guidelines that apply to IAR. --Ronz (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's doublethink. When we say you may ignore all rules if it improves the encyclopedia, you may in fact ignore all rules, provided that you actually improve the encyclopedia. No rules apply, modify, alter, or otherwise mutilate that fact.

If your application of Improve all rules does not in fact improve the encyclopedia, you're doing it wrong.

• I'm sure that you can make a point and make a better wiki whilst breaking the rules. If you do so, that's IAR. (And that's what we're discussing here)
• If you make a point and keep to the rules and break the wiki, that's WP:POINT (not applicable here)
• If you make a point and break the rules and break the wiki, that's disruption. (not applicable here)
• If you make no point, and break the rules and break the wiki, that's vandalism. (not applicable here)
• If you make no point, and keep to the rules and break the wiki, then you need to be reminded that WP:NOT a bureaucracy. (not applicable here)
• if you make no point, and keep to the rules, and improve the wiki, maybe you're a "wikifairy", or you somehow manage to get lucky. Though there is certainly a point to what wikifairies do, of course.... (not applicable here)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 23:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not following. What is doublethink? How are these examples you give not applicable? As I said, IAR is used as an excuse to disrupt, work against consensus, etc. --Ronz (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ronz, do you really think that IAR is just an "excuse to disrupt" etc? Perhaps you should tell that to Jimbo, since the only edit by him I've ever encountered was to add to IAR and with the message by him something along the lines of "IAR has always been". He would never let us get rid of it or dilute it, so obviously you have to live with it. IAR explicitly states it can only be used if you are improving the encyclopedia. If you personally have experience with people trying to justify their disruption by quoting IAR then those editors did not read IAR, do not understand, and/or are stupid. I personally have used IAR before successfully with no conflict. Wikipedia does not have laws, therefore nothing is written in stone.Camelbinky (talk) 02:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

"do you really think that IAR is just an 'excuse to disrupt'" No, I don't think that, which is why I never wrote such a thing.

My concern is that IAR is used as justification for disruption and working against consensus-building. Because of this, we need to steer editors toward proper use of IAR and away from its improper use. --Ronz (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The benefit of the encyclopedia sounds right written that way, but there's a flaw with it: there's not a single ideal way to write an encyclopedia, nor a single design an encyclopedia can have, nor unified conceptions about what is good or bad for it. There's a quote from the former essay "Use common sense" that seems to have been lost in the merging: "Invoking the principle of ignore all rules on its own will not convince anyone that you were right, so you will need to persuade the rest of the community that your actions improved the encyclopedia. A skilled application of this concept should ideally fly under the radar, and not be noticed at all." IAR would be intended for the situations when a user is alone and unsure about wich way to go or what to do. Once something involves many editors, or there's a dispute going on, IAR should be forgotten. Yes, consensus may decide that it would be better to do X thing despite what Y policy says, but at that point that shoud be a groupal view, not an individual view.

After all, if there's a dispute and there's no vandalism involved, it is all caused by users with conflicting visions about what benefits or harms the encyclopedia. One of them would not have the right to "ignore all rules" and impose his vision to the other: if he has, the other would have the same right as well, and both rights would be mutually negated. MBelgrano (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seems to think that IAR is when one editor tries to go against the consensus. That is not IAR at all. IAR is more often used by a group in consensus going against policy, which is perfectly within our rights and it is IAR which gives the group that right. We dont realize that we are using IAR when we do that, but that is what we are doing, we are invoking IAR. It is using IAR that allows us to know when a policy or guideline has outlived its usefulness and needs to be reworded or replaced, IAR is a natural order of evolution of Wikipedia, it is the very mechanism of our evolving, it is our version of natural selection that weeds out the parts of our policies that no longer function efficiently or effectively, in essence those policies because of IAR must either die or evolve.Camelbinky (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a misunderstanding. When I say that there are some users that may work against consensus claiming IAR (or UCS), I'm not saying that IAR allows them to do so. I'm saying that they think such thing, something I don't agree with, and I think it should be clarified to prevent misuse. MBelgrano (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Its been awhile, but MBelgrano, we dont and shouldnt write policy or guidelines with the purpose of writing for the lowest common denominator (eg- the most ignorant and stupid amongst us). If someone misuses IAR in order to justify going against consensus then they are no different than someone who vandalizes; they know what they are doing is wrong. It isnt because they "misinterpreted" policy, IAR is clear that is for improving the encyclopedia. Changing wording of IAR to weaken it because some are going to use it as justification for their misdeeds is like saying "ban all IPs because some use it to hide and vandalize"; an actual proposal I helped fight against.Camelbinky (talk) 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?

The section about "there is no common sense" (and there is, so I dont get the title), states that people of different cultures etc "have vastly different perceptions regarding everything from science to shoe shopping." Um, do the Chinese not have gravity on their side of the planet? Does electromagnetism not work in the same way? Science is science, we are an encyclopedia, and while yes there are individuals in every culture around the world that dont believe in evolution or certain aspect of science that doesnt mean there are any cultures themselves that dont believe in science. Being ignorant is not part of any culture (unless hillbillyism is a culture). Can we please not pander to ignorants who are ignorant about science and elevate their ignorance to a culture and to a "perception" of science or to a legitimate alternative. Change it to something that is on par with shoe shopping; which shoe shopping is not the same as science. Perhaps "have vastly different perceptions regarding everything from food to shoe shopping." Science isnt perfect and hasnt discovered everything, but it is absolute and not subjective to one's personal opinions. If I say its gnomes holding me to the ground and not gravity that keeps me on the planet, I am wrong and my opinion is not a "different preception of science" or an alternative.Camelbinky (talk) 23:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"Ignore all rules" and it's former attachment "Use common sense" are meant to be applied to users, policy/guideline/essay, and discussions or disputes about how to apply them; not to article content itself. If there is an explanation of things that, right, wrong or distorted, is regarded as "common sense", that's a topic for NPOV and presentation and prominence of viewpoints. Wikipedia:Use common sense and common sense are not the same thing. MBelgrano (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Um, MBelgrano, I dont think you understood my question...my fault- what I want to know is why the sentence says "vastly different perceptions regarding everything from science to shoe shopping". I want the word science changed to something else because there is no culture, ethnic group, or nationality that has a different "perception" of science, there is only certain individuals who are ignorant of science. I want the sentence reworded, I dont care about the content or idea behind common sense/no common sense (well, I do but not about this right now).Camelbinky (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess the "science" bit makes reference to topics of strong antagonism, such as evolution vs. creationism, existence of God or not, existence or not of soul, heaven, hell and other religious concepts, etc. Yes, the scientific method is the only one to make science, regardless of culture, but for X or Y reason (not only religious ones) many groups of people willingly reject to follow it. And the idea of the sentence was "from topics of great antagonism to others of trivial antagonism". Replacing science with food negates this meaning. MBelgrano (talk) 03:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea of the sentence is that race, ethnicity, culture, nationalities have different perspectives on X or Y. NO race, ethnicity, culture, nationality or mainstream religion has an actual official perspective on science that is still science. Creationism is not another perspective of science, it is faith. Individuals may believe in such things, but it is not a perspective of science. The Catholic Church has accepted evolution and the concept of the Big Bang (though still puts the restriction on Catholic scientists that "it is ok to study the Big Bang but not to speculate on what CREATED the Big Bang, that is the domain of God and the Church"); but individual Catholics might not believe in the Big Bang or evolution. We shouldnt wrongly put that there are different perspectives on science as a pandering to ignorance. Like you said the scientific method is the science, what you mention about heaven hell etc is not science nor in the domain of science and therefore not a "perspective" on science. No REAL scientist studies heaven, hell, God, etc because it isnt possible to do so with the scientific method, pseudoscience and religion are not "perspectives on science". Not everyone's opinion is "valid" and "equal" in science, not everyone's opinion on how the world works is a "perspective of science". If you want to change the wording and add science back in then I suggest changing the word "perspective" and clarify that you are talking about people believing in faith as opposed to science, not that they just have a different prespective on science.Camelbinky (talk) 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some examples of different viewpoints on science. A mathematician and a logician will have rather different views on the term "1/0". Because a logician will keep want to keep the sematics of a language seperate from the syntax. An engineer will frequently ignore quantum mechanical issues when doing physics, because the effects will be too small to notice compared with newtonian physics. Energy means different things to a psychologist compared to a physisist. An intuitionsist will have a different idea of what constitutes a valid inference compared to one who accepts clasical logic. Taemyr (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The engineer does not dispute the existance of quantum effects, (s)he simply doesnt need to apply the effects thereof to what (s)he is doing. Not the same thing. None of your examples are "different perspectives" on science. And a psychologist is not a scientist btw. Science is science. None of the examples given, Taemyr, show how a nationality, culture, race, etc have a fundamental different perspective on science. All of your examples are about individuals. Individuals are not cultures.Camelbinky (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well conflicts due to different perspectives are conflicts between individuals. Where the different perspectives originate from is rather irrelevant. Also, you say "a psychologists is not a scientist." Do you mean to imply that nonscientists can't have perspectives on science? Taemyr (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Im saying individual perspectives on science are irrelevant. Ignorance is not a perspective. The sentence and paragraph in the essay refers to races, ethnic groups, etc- WHOLE GROUPS. Not individuals. Let's be honest, the whole reason science is mentioned is to give aid to those that want to put things like creationism into science articles and want faith to be on an even level with science. Faith is not a "different perspective" on science. Faith is faith; science is science. They arent two sides of the same coin and have nothing to do with each other. Lets stop pretending they do. This is an encyclopedia, a serious academic affair, not to be muddled with appeasing those who are ignorant of science.Camelbinky (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry. The section clearly refers to the wikipedias and what constitutes common sense to different wikipedians. The listing of groups are some examples of how they can have different views on what constitute common sense. If the essay as it stands is unclear on this it should probably be modified. The important thing is that what is common sense to you might not be common sense to a different editor, and as such the argument "it's simply common sense" may be insufficent.

When discussing with fellow editors you have to explain your actions. If an editor does not accept your argument as "it's common sense" you have to explain why it common sense. This holds even if the editor you are talking to happen to be a new ager.Taemyr (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason that sentence is there is to address ignorant views such as "And a psychologist is not a scientist btw." How someone can argue that there aren't differing opinions within the scientific community and process and then make a comment such as that simply boggles the mind, but it at least makes for an effective demonstration of exactly the reason that "common sense" should never be cited as a reason for something.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Camelbinky seems to be alone in his view that science should not be mentioned. So I have reverted him. Taemyr (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone understand that the sentence is talking about ethnic, racial, national GROUPS NOT individuals!!!!! Yes, individual scientists can have different opinions, individuals can have different perspectives. But the sentence is talking about whole groups that have a different perspective on what science is. The Chinese do not believe that voodoo is science, neither do Australian Aborigines. Science is not faith, faith is not science. No one in this argument seems to understand that and you keep talking about individuals. The sentence is not about individuals. You cant claim to have the consensus on your side Taemyr when you cant even grasp what the essay says. Read it again please.Camelbinky (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that different groups may well have different perspectives on science. The idea that Western Europeans have exactly the same view of science (or food, or shoe shopping...) as Bushmen, for example, seems bizarre to me. I've no idea what makes Camelbinky so certain on this. --hippo43 (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we add a footnote

While it is a fact that there are different perspectives on science, and that we need to be aware of this when discussing with editors, it is also the case that science defines itself in terms of reproducability and falsifiability. Properties that several viewpoints that attempt to claim to be science lacks. We should be clear on the fact that while we need to respect the oppinion of editors, we also need to seperate proper science from pseudoscience. So I think a footnote might be in order here. Taemyr (talk) 08:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe just do what Camelbinky suggests, and use a different example than "science"? If we can use an uncontroversial word that makes the point just as well, we won't need any footnotes or additional explanation.--Kotniski (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Since people have been sanctioned for failure to accept that other perspectives on science exists, see eg. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science it seems to me a point that should stand. Taemyr (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's really what they were sanctioned for; but I'm sure they would be equally sanctioned for failure to accept that other perspectives on, say, clothes exist, if they behaved in the manner they did, so it wouldn't harm the message here by substituting "clothes" for "science".--Kotniski (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As I stated before, the original intention of the example is to point people having different views and interpretations "from (big and polemic conflicting viewpoints) to (trivial conflicting viewpoints)". Such intention gets negated if we modify the sentence to be "from (trivial) to (also trivial)", as if people had conflicting viewpoints at only trivial topics. If you don't like the current wording, propose another that keeps the intention of the original one. Perhaps "politics" (real ones), but in an essay that talks about policies (internal to this website) that may lead to confusion MBelgrano (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Politics" would be fine with me. Anyway, what's with this sentence about written things being the only thing we have in common? Am I missing something; it seems nonsense to me. (I mean, there's probably nothing that's common to everyone, but then there are no policies and guidelines that everyone agrees with.) I tried rewriting it so it made some kind of sense, but it came out rather sarcastic. Can someone who knows what it's supposed to be saying try and make sense of it?--Kotniski (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's supposed to mean something along the line of our policies and guidelines beeing a common starting ground for debate, but frankly I am having trouble parsing that sentence. Taemyr (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So do we finally agree that something other than science is preferable? It seems that Taemyr is willing to agree that science may not be the best word. Politics sounds good. Different cultures obviously have different inherent beliefs on political structure/law and order ideas. Some cultures are more relaxed and some are inherently more interested in law/order over "freedom"; not a judgement call on my part on who is right/wrong, I dont believe there is a "right government", just a fact that some prefer more structure and bureaucracy and order than others.Camelbinky (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. 'Science' is fine - it gets the point across clearly. --hippo43 (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Using "Science" is just as acceptable as anything else. No matter what subject is used there someone will have an issue with it, so I don't see what changing it to "Politics" or anything else will accomplish. I'd also like to point out that the use of "science" in this portion seems at least partially intentional for exactly the reason that it is under fire. I see no compelling reason to change anything.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)