Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 9

The font thing

Clearly we have an enduring difference of opinion on the appropriate font size for the IAR text itself. I'm no graphic designer, so I have no strong opinion. However, it does seem clear that the text needs to be in some way emphasized over the other (supplementary) text on the page. Some options:

1. Return to 120% font. (opposed by Deskana, possibly others)

2. Invert the page so that the policy-box is below the actual IAR text.

3. Make all the other text on the page smaller.

Thoughts? -- Visviva 03:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose 1, 2, and 3, although 1 is tolerable. I still like the idea of fixing it in <center> tags. Picaroon (Talk) 03:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with leaving it as standard sized left aligned text. Should I find everyone disagrees with me, I don't really care enough to cause a fuss about it. --Deskana (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I dislike the centered text. It violates our style conventions (thereby making the policy appear less "official"), and with the centered header box in place, it actually makes the key sentence stand out less. —David Levy 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with either the regular text or the larger text for the main wording. I don't care which we go with, and I only wish that we could settle on one or the other instead of reverting back and forth.

Options 2 and 3, however, are unacceptable. Wikipedians expect the policy box to appear at the top of the page. If anything, placing the key text above it would only make it more difficult to spot (because no one would expect to find it there).

Making the rest of the text smaller would make it more difficult to read (and would look ridiculous). —David Levy 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm opposed to 2 and 3. Personally I find it most readable boxless, centered and slightly larger (some version of this). Personally I don't see how centering text, making text larger or saying "this is policy" instead of having a box makes it less official. I also don't think it makes it look like we're ashamed that this is policy. I think the non-box version is easiest to read (though I'd make the text 120%, 130 is a little big). If we use a box version, I think it's easiest to read centered and 120%. I'm also against the removing of the spacing on the page again--that was awful! Miss Mondegreen talk  08:23, May 27 2007 (UTC)

None of the above "makes it less official." I said that centering the policy text makes it appear less official. So does removing the policy header box.

Wikipedians are familiar with certain style conventions, and it's best to incorporate as many as possible (while still ensuring that the page is readable and contains the necessary information). We should strive to convey the fact that this carries the full weight of policy, and a good way to send that message is to make it look like a normal policy page.

I also believe that removing the header box makes the page harder to read (because the box serves as demarcation, thereby making the main text stand out more). Likewise, centering the main text seems counterintuitive to me, as everyone is accustomed to left-aligned text. Centering it makes it look like some sort of summary of or adjunct to the actual policy (in the example that you cited, my eyes jump straight past the centered text to the left-aligned text that follows), and it diminishes the effect of the policy's brevity.

The header box's custom wording (which incorporates significant meta-information without interfering with the layout) and the extra spacing (which makes the key text easier to find and read) are good. They assist the reader without substantially changing the page's overall appearance. Even the increased text size doesn't detract from the casual impression that this is a "real" policy. The other ideas do, and they don't make the page any easier to read (IMHO). —David Levy 11:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Let me see if I can figure out where we stand then.

We pretty much have clear consensus against making the policy text smaller and against moving the policy box somewhere else, right?

Which leaves the issues of centering and size. There's been a lot of edit warring about this, but very few comments and they don't all follow the edit warring.

• David Levy: against centering, no opinion on size
• Deskana: apparantly prefers the standard sized left aligned text, but wouldn't cause a fuss about it
• Picaroon: likes centering, opposes a larger font but finds it tolerable
• Miss Mondegreen: likes centering and 120%; finds 120% important, centering negligable

These really aren't enough opinions. Can we get people to weigh in on the issues of centering and size and give reasons why? Reasoning will be very helpful if so many people are neutral or if they care slightly but not enough to revert. Miss Mondegreen talk  06:28, May 28 2007 (UTC)

I think it should look like every other policy page. Standard text, left-aligned, standard policy box. The pertinent statements should be linked as references. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think we should restore it to Kim's version. Nice and blinking. Catches the eye. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Shumin--we're talking font here, please don't go into content.

Could we all compromise on left-alignment but slightly larger text? 115% or 120% instead of 130%? This would make it a little more readable and a little more distinct but the difference between this and standard formatting would be minor. Would people be ok with that? Still readable, still distinct, but not overt and not too different from standard formatting? Miss Mondegreen talk  08:05, May 29 2007 (UTC)

As indicated above, I'm okay with a 100% text size, a 130% text size, or anything in between. It all looks fine to me. —David Levy 08:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to make the font size 130%. Why such an arbitrary number? Obviously we're increasing the size to show that this policy is important, right? If we weren't trying to say anything, we'd just keep it at 100%. So why stop at 130%? Why not 500%? Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The extra blank space above and below the policy text make it stand out just fine. Centering would be a very bad idea (we use centering for notices) and larger text makes it look awkward (because it's so different from other pages). I really fail to understand your need to edit this page - if it ain't broken, don't fix it. Миша13 09:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the page is really hilarious at the moment. More cruft than content. Broken isn't the word :-P.

Guys, don't discuss spaces :-P. Either drastically reformat and use your best styling skills to make it look cool, or just leave it, kay? :) --Kim Bruning 12:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

product process policy

Yup, definitely belongs here. Seconded.

And conflict of interest when a guideline maintainer and writer maintains and writes guidelines? ;-) That's a very interesting conflict! :-P --Kim Bruning 16:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh. I'm just saying that there was no consensus to put it on the project page. And it's strange that the essay that Radiant did put up was his own... Rockstar (^T/_C) 08:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no consensus? How did you determine that? That and PPP is a perfectly decent essay. If you must muck this page up with more refs, that's the ref to do. --Kim Bruning 12:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait, so you had actually done a revert on that, (oops) um, shan't add to the edit count of the page by self reverting. Is there really a reason not to link that page? It's related, which is all you really need to know for a see also. (possibly we could link everything under the see also... and after that we need to do something to declutter the page) --Kim Bruning 13:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• See the section on top of the page. "Conflict of interest" is about people promoting themselves in an article, not about people who add a link to an explanatory page. It's not "my" essay, and it is interesting to note that, despite several months of existence, nobody has sprung up to say "no, this is false". That may be telling... >Radiant< 16:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxcruft removal, take 2?

So now the page is actually as big a mess as ever. If you're going to say something, cut to the chase and say it, but don't hide it somewhere inside a huge amount of other text. One of the tidy versions is better, either [Sidaway's version] or, [tidied version like this], or one of Miss Mondegreens proposals to put all the "cruft" below a dividing line.

Whichever takes your fancy. Now we're stuck with a design by commission. Let's pick a sane version, and use that? (and hopefully that'll also stop people arguing over spaces :-P )

This is also an issue that should then be carried over to other pages, in the wikipedia namespace and the main namespace. So I suggest folks think hard and get things right for a larger scale deployment.

--Kim Bruning 13:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC) If one or two people think up a cool layout themselves, and implement it, I'm fine with that too. (as per "tradition" comments I've made earlier). On this route, we'd build up a repository of possible approaches over time, and can pick whichever is nicest/most practical from that repository as time progresses- Which is not a bad plan either.

Eh?

1. Would you care to explain why exactly is this page a "big mess"? I still fail to see what's wrong with it at the moment.
2. Forgot what I wanted to ask halfway with writing 1. above...
3. What in the world is "larger scale deployment" supposed to mean? Especially of Wikipedia: ideas in mainspace?

Миша13 18:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the current version looks just fine. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand the belief that boxes are inherently bad. —David Levy 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Boxes are not inherently bad. But when boxes take up more space than text, that's a different story. Possibly you only think the current version looks fine because your mind has already learned to blank out all the boxes. :-P

The situation is as follows: There is more "cruft" on this page than the actual content. The difference is many kilobytes. The latter sentence is an objectively measurable fact.

That means that we have a fairly low S/N ratio, which can be mathematically derived from the above.

Experts in the field state that a communication with a low S/N ratio is of "low quality".

In my admittedly slightly loose wording I reword "low S/N ratio" as "it's rather messy."

This is certainly something that could use improvement.

(in answer to Misza question 3) If we can clean up one page, we can also clean up others. Note that I have been routinely maintaining and tidying up policy for years, and this appears to be the first time people are actually opposed to simple reformatting. <boggle> Actually they're opposed to even attempting to reformat <superboggle>. In fact opposed to even seeing what the page might look like. <brain asplode>. Can someone try to explain?

--Kim Bruning 12:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

We recently tried several versions lacking boxes, and some of us prefer the current version. In other words, our opinion differs from yours <boggle>.

What text did you interpret as opposition to the idea of seeing what the page would look like with changes? We're merely expressing disagreement with your opinion that the current version is "messy" and not "sane." —David Levy 13:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, some people are doing two things. A. Expressing disagreement that the page could be improved, and B. continuously reverting to status quo ante. Would it be ok to have patience even for a couple of days while the consensus process runs? :-) Worst case you can still revert, and in all other cases the page comes out a lot tidier.

In other news, do you think that improvement is impossible, or what is your actual position? --Kim Bruning 17:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC) When I was a teenager, I was always surprised when my mom called my room a "mess". No way, it was perfectly tidy! (and as a teenager I obviously knew much better :-P) And then she'd show me... and it ended up orders of magnitude tidier ^^;;

Again, I don't see where anyone is expressing disagreement with the notion that it might be possible to improve the page. We merely disagree with your opinion that the current version is bad (and that the past revisions were superior).

I believe that it's possible to improve any Wikipedia page. This is, after all, a wiki. I also believe that the current version of WP:IAR is good. —David Levy 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's possible to improve the page. I disagree with the description of the current state as a "mess", and with the characterization of what's there as "boxcruft". I think it looks like a one-sentence Wikipedia policy, with some essays linked. The other stuff is just atmosphere, keeping us oriented when in doubt that we're all in Kansas anymore. Why is mentally blanking out some boxes a bad thing? I'm not advocating inertia for its own sake, it's just that I don't see the current page as such an eyesore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

ABC order? the font thing

ABC order doesn't make sense. ABC order minus dick makes less sense. I believe this was discussed above.

Also, in re font size...I don't know why the font size has more reverts than almost anything else in recent days. This has been discussed three times, and people have offered the following opinions.

• Want something to set the policy apart--they'd prefer centering, but they'll take bigger font.
• REALLY don't want centering.
• Don't care/don't want bigger font but don't care enough to revert
• Want bigger font, but not too big

Also, there have been several people who edited in re font/centering prior to the discussion. If their edits were contradictory to their opinion, I counted their opinion because it was more recent and not made with other changes etc. If they didn't voice an opinion, I just took their action or their edit summary as a vote.

Adding in what people care about, a slightly large font was a good compromise. On that issue alone--no it doesn't have a majority. But when you take into account the multitude of opinions people expressed and the various compromises to get to just dealing with that one issue alone...

If you disagree, go ahead and ask for a straw poll or more opinions or whatever, but please stop revert warring on the formatting of the policy line. It was because the stupid thing wasn't visible enough that started the last or second to last uber re-formatting and breakdown and lock down of the page. Slightly bigger font is major compromise from clearing off all but the policy line. Miss Mondegreen talk  20:52, June 2 2007 (UTC)

As much as I likd this policy, I'm now thinking it's not worth the incessant bickering from everyone, including myself. It's a policy designed to cut down on unnecessary rules lawyering, so that people can focus on improving Wikipedia. And instead, everyone's arguing over semantics. It's quite ironic. Of course in the end what I think doesn't matter, since nobody else will want to delete it. --Deskana (talk) 21:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

People are arguing over page formatting, forget semantics. It's a definite new low ^^;; I thought we'd be done in like 24-48 hours, and then have been able to move on! --Kim Bruning 12:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we've got a larger font size. It's silly and no other policy page follows that style (granted, IAR is unlike any other policy on the site). Maybe I could get more upset about this, but edit warring over it really is bordering on "severely retarded" at this point, for lack of a better phrase. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree totally. I think the font should be standard size but edit warring over it would be the most childish thing I'd ever done. --Deskana (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've done so many more childish things that if that's true...hmm, I have nothing good to finish that sentence with. To be honest there was/is an actual concept behind having a larger font. For starters, there is an enormously large contingent of editors who thing that the policy is lost behind cruft and a larger font and moving some of the cruft was a compromise to the one sentence page, because in previous versions of the page I did agree with the cruft people on one thing--I couldn't find the policy! Now the policy is slightly more readable because there are no footnotes and the policy is slightly bigger. Really, I think that there's greater consensus for the boxless version in my sandbox or centering the text, but those changes are bigger ones, and they really bring people out of the woodwork against it. None of the bigger changes that any one group (even the large ones) wanted was really going through and staying because people so vehemently wanted a box or left-aligned text, so I thought that a slightly larger font got two of the groups what they wanted without killing the third and that everyone could be slightly unhappy instead of one group happy and everyone else miserable. It seems like a great idea to me.

The problem inherent in a one-sentence policy page is that it has all of the cruft that a regular page does, but no space to put it in. Kim's right, the categories take up more room then the policy. It's like putting all of these things to make this alter room better, but in the end, no one can find the alter. (ok, so I'm having analogy problems). You can move the other stuff around, you can get rid of it (but the people protest), you can repackage it (put figurines in the glass cupboard), you can move the alter or make it bigger, but whatever you do, someone isn't happy. Some people want the room to only have the alter. Some people would be very unhappy if the alter was changed in any way. Some people would be very upset if anything else in the room was changed. Because the room is so small, they notice the most minute changes. Because the room is so important to them, they are there as often as they can be. The alter room will never sleep. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:21, June 3 2007 (UTC)

I never said there was anything wrong with the viewpoint conflicting to mine. There isn't at all. It is, however, pathetic to edit war over the sizing of a page, regardless of how big you think the page should be. --Deskana (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This phrase, "pathetic" is neither helpful, substantive or supportive. Please adjust your tone and contribute to the discussion rather than simply criticize it. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You think getting into a revert war over whether the font size of one line of text should be 120% or 100% isn't pathetic? Really? --Deskana (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an alternative to being childish :). Deskana--actually what I think the page should look like is very different from the current version. You're right that I do think it's a bad idea to revert on the font size though. It's a minor change and the last vestage of major changes that people really wanted. Maybe it wasn't the best compromise--clearly, regardless of saying that it's a minor edit that they don't really care about people do. But I think getting rid of the changes that are the compromise between the boxless version and the boxed version is a bad idea. It wasn't one of people's sticking points which made it a good thing to compromise on, but it's seeming to become one. If people would like to go back to the drawing board in terms of what people's issues are (they want a box, they want this, they absolutely don't want this etc. etc.) and can find a better compromise, that's great. Or if someone says something other than "it should be the same size and alignment as the other pages because it's a policy too"--if there's a real reason to avoid doing a larger size, then we should definitely go back to the drawing board. But without a real reason (just the other ones look like x) and knowing how long it took to craft this uber-compromised version, I'm sorta loathe to. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:13, June 4 2007 (UTC)

I don't give a shit whether it's objectively or subjectively pathetic, useless or worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. As an administrator, you have what I see as an even stronger obligation than anyone else not to be a dick, so please consider curbing your language. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 11:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Your incivility and swearing is, of course, acceptable? --Deskana (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Let Malcolm be, he's making goods points. Don't steer the conversation away from the topic -- if you have something to say to him about the content of his posts, say it on his talk page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

How then do I effectively communicate with you (or any admin) when I feel you're out of line? Must I continually stay reasonable, turn the other cheek and only attempt to communicate my disagreement some finite number of times? Is it never reasonable for me to lose my patience? Am I always held to the impossible standard of never losing my patience? What part of my last comment was incivil? I swore because I was frustrated. I suppose you used "pathetic" for the same reason. I still think you have a greater responsibility/duty to be and remain polite and supportive, but obviously you're free to dismiss that feedback. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 02:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should import Uncyclopedia's randomized templates, so that the order will be different each time you look at it? >Radiant< 15:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The flaw in consensus-editing

I'm not going to fight this, but just point it out: I've been away from the IAR editing/discussion for a few weeks (personal reasons). In that time, the policy has gone back to pretty much what it was when I came here and started suggesting changes, trying to build consensus, trying to get change to happen. My personal opinion about what IAR should/should not be has not changed, and I assume there are other editors who originally agreed with me who still feel the same way (no real practical way of knowing either way). What has changed, though, is that I went away, and in the meantime, the folks who didn't, won. They got to fight it back to the form they like. The only way I really have to effectively put my point of view into the "consensus" result is to continually fight and fight and fight for it. The week/month I stop, it slips back to something else.

This is not consensus, it's attrition. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So... a large group of people thought one thing, while only a couple of people disagreed, and the larger group got their way. Consensus isn't the same as "everyone gets their way". (I know I may sound like an ass; unintentional, I assure you, but I'm having trouble understanding your argument, assuming that it isn't "I'm pissed that nobody agreed with me"). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not only a couple people. It seems that way because some of those who support the policy as-is are willing to constantly hammer at this, while those who support it a different way are not. So whenever the people who want it changed go away, the other people whack the policy back to how they wish it. -Amarkov moo! 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been following any of the arguments at all, I was just sort of responding off the cuff. I really should know better than to do that by now. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My point more closely follows Amarkov's. I had been hammering at IAR for at least a month, made some progress with the idea that we might consider linking a few more resources and try to express the apparently ineffable part of IAR which is that it is not suitable for going against consensus, even though it is fine for going against the rules, as long as you have consensus to do so (i.e. it's not appropriate for enforcing an individual's administrative POV if s/he hasn't built consensus about that POV first). Some small progress had been made when I was called away by Real Life. I came back to a policy almost essentially the same as it was before I started talking about trying to explicate the slightly more expanded interpretation that we'd been talking about here (the talk page). Heck, even that discussion is now in the Archives, even though the majority of editors who were talking about it at the time agreed that the Talk Page was the appropriate place for the expanded discussion. I doubt a lot of people will dig deep into the Talk Archives as long as it's easy to interpret the current shape/form of IAR any way you damn well please. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 03:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, concise centralized policies such as this are not what wikis do well. The pool of interested editors is too large, and the pool of alternatives from which to seek consensus is too small. Which is probably enough reason to leave this alone, as long as it still says more or less what it should, and go back to articlespace. -- Visviva 22:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that change is difficult to make in policy, giving up strikes me as, well, giving up, which is against my philosophy. If I give up at trying to make policies better, I will concurrently give up on contributing to Wikipedia at all. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 04:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's the alter room problem. See my comment in the section above Malcolm--it not only has my cool analogy, but it explains a bit of what happened while you were gone. That's actually how we got to the font size revert war. Miss Mondegreen talk  08:03, June 4 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right. Unfortunately I'm still very worried by what I observe as fact, which is that the phrase is so short that it's open to greatly disparate interpretations. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 15:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

At least there are some explanatory essays in the "see also" section now. That seems to be an improvement over two months ago. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly -- if someone attempts to use IAR as an excuse for something that obviously goes against consensus, then we can just point them to one of the essays. I see that as actually a pretty good compromise between the people who want the policy changed and those who don't. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. I guess we'll see how it works in practice when someone actually does use IAR in the dark side way. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 00:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of the dark side way, I'm sure this has been suggested before, but how about creating an IAR task force? I think we all agree that IAR is best understood by people who have been at Wikipedia for some time and understand the other policies (or, rather, understand that they exist -- a newbie won't know about IAR or WP:V). So the task force could be a place for editors who have any questions about IAR or an interpretation of it... I've seen too often an inexperienced editor on an article talk page arguing with a more experienced editor who just ends up saying "I'm doing it because of IAR, bitch" and getting their way. Let's squish that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the newbie or the experienced editor saying "I'm IAR"? --Deskana (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Experienced editor. There's a reason I didn't major in English. Rockstar (^T/_C) 01:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Though I did get a minor in it.

Shit. JzG/Guy did that to me the first few days I particpated in DRV. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 01:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that brings up even another question -- as I said above, many people who evoke IAR are experienced editors, many of whom are admins... and if a non-admin, say, in a case like yours, said "Oh Guy, you're interpreting IAR incorrectly, please read X essay," well... I think we all know how he/any other admin would react. Maybe the answer does lie in expanding the policy page, even if it means adding another sentence that says something along the lines of "Many people misinterpret this policy. Please refer to the See Also section for explanations..." As a side note, isn't it interesting that pretty much everyone who is opposed to changing the policy is an admin? IAR = license to do whatever the hell you want if you're an admin? Seems to me that that's how IAR is interpreted more often than not... Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• • It is interesting, but the correlation is incorrect. The point is that long-term users tend to support IAR more than relatively new users, and that long-term users have a higher likelihood of being admins. Many new users believe we need firm rules, or assume that we already have them; many old users believe the opposite, or know from experience that we do fine without. It's a culture issue. >Radiant< 08:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So what you're saying is that it's okay for Guy to do what he did to Malcolm? I hope not. See, I don't have a problem with IAR as a policy. What I have a problem with is long-term editors using it to win an argument against new editors, and you'd be naive to say that doesn't happen. Am I out of line here by saying that? If I am, then we've got a problem with the community, much worse than the one you described. It's a power game, and not a good one for the project. What frustrates me the most, however, is that no one is actually listening to people like Malcolm -- these "experienced editors" just blow him off, despite his good points, because "IAR will/should not change" and "it's good as it is." An attitude like that will be the death of Wikipedia: the point, the essence, of IAR is that the rules aren't firm. IAR is, therefore, not firm. There's no reason why we should be conservative about this, as Wikipedia was meant to be the exact opposite. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • No, you're not out of line by saying that, but you may simply be wrong. The point of this page is not to win arguments against new editors, but to win arguments against bureaucracy, like "you can't do that 'cuz it's against the rules". Those arguments are most commonly, but not always, made by novice users. You will note that I have stated several times on this talk page that I do not object to additions on this page, and that some of my changes to IAR have been reverted by people who said I couldn't do that 'cuz it's against the rules. It would seem that you're overgeneralizing. >Radiant< 16:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • The DRV page states that it is about process and not content. Perhaps this represents wishful thinking, and is not an accurate description of what goes on. This may mislead people, and be the cause of unfortunate misunderstandings like this. Thus we see one problem of writing pages to say what we think others ought to do: some people will be "kept in line" by it, and sometimes we can manufacture consent that way, but often it doesn't work, and the results can be demotivating. The same reasoning applies to attempts to change this page to fix DRV, except to an even higher degree. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • I realize that the point of IAR is not to win arguments, I'm saying that it is often interpreted and used as such. I also understand and accept the bureaucracy argument, so don't get me wrong -- I believe that IAR is bar none the most important policy in Wikipedia. But, as most of us agree, it is also one of the most misinterpreted policies. It's hard to misinterpret WP:V or WP:CIVIL, unless you're really dense, but it's very easy to misinterpret IAR, mostly because it's only 12 words that form a not-so-clear-to-the-common-man/editor sentence. Should we change that? I think we definitely can, but I think a lot of people are reluctant to do so. Why? I don't know, I can't answer that question. But for the record, the argument "Because it's good as is" is both a poor argument and inappropriate. It should also be noted that I'm not talking about you, Radiant, I'm talking about those people who occasionally swoop into these conversations and say either "IAR is fine as is" or "This conversation occurs every other week and gets no where." Those sorts of comments are unhelpful and out of place. As I said above, it drives me crazy when people like Malcolm bring up good, solid points about the purpose of IAR and no one ever responds to their content. It's always "IAR is fine as is," "You just don't understand it," "This has already been discussed," or "Malcolm, stop swearing." That's a problem. Sure, the topic has been discussed before, but the questions have never been answered and the problems not changed. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
          • It's one of the few damn things that's in English around here. As for not responding to points made: DRV. Altering IAR to fix. Not good idea. See below, see above. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
            • DRV is a process, not a policy, so I think my point still stands. So do you or do you not want to fix IAR? I got a bit lost there... Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
              • !?!? Thinking I've been making sense all along, I see I've reached new heights in unfuckingcomprehensibility. Eat your heart out Kim Bruning. Guess I better take a break. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
                • We're all taking occasional breaks from this page. ^^;; Take it easy man! :-) --Kim Bruning 21:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
                  • Sweet. Now we can vandalize the project page. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• This has also been at RFC the whole time. It was also canvassed at the village pump at some point. It's just not the "most revered and most hated policy". If anything, that's DRV: people have such strong feelings, they want to alter IAR so that people absolutely must follow their process. Now, if people think an admin would fail to react the way they want to "Oh, you're reading IAR incorrectly, please read X essay", then perhaps the "correct" interpretation wasn't really agreed upon to begin with! Maybe they should reconsider whether this alteration is a good idea. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. The actual issue was that DRV decides some issues not in the way that some people would like. But since this page isn't a prescription, changing it wouldn't change DRV, thus the suggestions here are somewhat misguided. >Radiant< 15:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point. We have policies and processes to keep everything from going to pot. The problem with this wording is two-fold. One, people ignored the part about improving Wikipedia. But even if they don't, everyone's idea of improving Wikipedia is different. This policy encourages OWNing, saying my idea of what improves wikipedia is more important than yours and if I can get away with ignoring consensus etc. etc, that's good, because I've improved the wiki. That's a REALLY REALLY REALLY bad thing to have as policy, it's a really bad thing to have in general, because that's already what people are going to have to motivate them. People are already going to be inclined to try to make changes that are conroversial under the radar if they think that they are good changes and that they know what's right. This policy, this page, this wording just encourages that, it encourages all of the admin abuse I see on a daily basis and yes, it's highly, highly problematic. The problem is that even Sanger's version doesn't work anymore. If posting a requested move freaks you out and makes you nervous--you can't just ignore that you're supposed to do it and what, just move the page? Sure, go ahead and ask someone to post it for you, that's fine but even the procedural stuff is there for a reason. This rule was around in the beginning of Wikipedia, when they needed contributers desperately and when Sanger and others were up 24/7 patrolling constantly to revert vandalism etc. We don't want to be encouraging masses of new editors to ignore rules that they don't yet know--they then got hostile when they do get in trouble for breaking rules, because let's face it, a lot of people don't AGF, or we wouldn't hear cries of sockpuppet anytime a new editor with every sign of actually being new manages to find their way to ANI. And we definitely don't want to encourage that bad behavoir that far too many admins already exhibit. Look, let's be honest, WP:OWN type of behavoir is everywhere. There isn't a single legal mirror website because the office deletes histories of pages when people complain. Wikipedia would be legally in the clear, because they get rid of the material as well as the info on the contributers, except that people have saved versions of the articles and can find them on mirrors and build them back, better sourced, using the prior version. And, wikipedia is at fault, because they/we/? is letting others know what they need to do to be compliant with those form letters and no reading of the letters or the GFDL license could possibly let mirrors know that they have to host their own copies of the contributers to articles because wikipedia removes histories. Obviously, that's a completely different issue, but my point is, is that there are real authority problems on Wikipedia. Just look at the press we get. This policy or whatever the hell you want to call it lends itself to that, no matter what form it's in. Besides, I don't know why any of you think that people really need someone to tell them that they can ignore the rules. Miss Mondegreen talk  22:16, June 5 2007 (UTC)

Page got all fat again

There seems to be an unwritten rule that this policy will always be augmented with weaseling and encrustations of interpretation. I wish everybody would resist the impulse to gild the lily, but since they won't, well every now and then I have to go in and slim it down.

Please try to keep it slim. --Tony Sidaway 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the change back to the long established version. This rule needs to be kept simple, write an essay if you want to go into further detail. ^(H) 19:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be simple? Give a solid reason. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it is a simple rule. It always has been. Since day one. ^(H) 22:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Really? That's funny, because it was actually meant as a joke on day one. It was later changed to policy far after day one, and not in the same version that we have today. So maybe you should reconsider that statement. Plus, all this not to mention that your reasoning is completely invalid. Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The tone of all the rules was different. I mean, for starters, "Rules To Consider". Heck, arguably, Wikipedia was not taken seriously on day one either. It was just a feeder for the real encyclopedia. Turned out the bizarro encyclopedia worked better. Who knew? --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Which is why those who think IAR is some ridiculously solid, deep, and immovable policy should reconsider their stance. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

At one point in your life, you were unable to walk, hold a conversation, or eat solid food. Should we regard you as you were, or as you are? Just because IAR may have started out as a joke (nothing personal, but the only bit of evidence is you saying that it was) doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered a serious policy now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a distortion of a quote from Larry Sanger where he called it a "...temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues..." which goes with the view that Wikipedia was just a "feeder" anyway; but IAR, like Wikipedia, has become ... well, maybe not "ridiculously solid, deep, and immovable", but certainly a good deal less temporary. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, it did start out as a joke. Your point is well-made, but poorly placed, as I do think that IAR is absolutely fundamental to Wikipedia. My response was to H's comment, who said that since day one, IAR has been a deep, simple, and unchangeable policy. That's just not true. Your baby comment fits in better as a compliment to my response rather than an argument against it. Rockstar (^T/_C) 17:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I misread what you said. Well, good to know that I still made a good point, regardless of how off-the-mark I was. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha. Well, be proud, because it's not every day that people make good points on this thread! ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

EVula's not the only one misreading what others have said. Saying it started out as a joke is a bit of a misreading. Also, the H-man said it is a simple rule, and always has been, since day one. This is correct. There was a few times when people added and removed complications, like the short bout we just had a few weeks ago, but all the stable versions were simple. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2+2 is simple. IAR is not simple, it is "deep and subtle", at least according to Jimbo. Something that is deep and subtle is hardly simple. And all this not to mention that our current version of IAR came into existence barely one year ago. How old is Wikipedia? How long has this policy been around? Saying that IAR "simple" and "solid" is shortsighted, naive, and going against the spirit of the entire policy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey now, "solid" is your word. Here, simple is not in opposition to deep, but in opposition to complex, encrusted, verbose, weasly, etc, you know, the original context of this section? Right above? Now if you're quite done, perhaps we could get back to talking about fonts. I would like to use a bigger one, or more contrasting colours, since it really is hard to read. I am after all quite shortsighted. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Solid wasn't in reference to you, but rather those people who swoop in at the last minute and say "this policy must never change, it's perfect the way it is." That's what I meant by solid, and that's not IAR -- you know as well as I do that such a statement isn't true. So note that I'm not arguing with you when I went on my tirade. And for the record, I like the fact that you're one of the few that adds constructive arguments and insight to this page. So please don't take anything I say personally. Hope that made sense. For what it's worth, I'm farsighted, so font size doesn't bother me. What I liked the most was Kim's black background. ;) Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. "Ignore all rules" refers to Wikipedia's rules, which is why I don't mind the word being hyperlinked. This ignored all rules of good taste, and could easily have gotten him darned to heck. Incidentally, flattery will get you nowhere. But don't let that stop you. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 01:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't flattering you. I was speaking my mind. If I like someone, I'll tell them, and if I don't, I'll tell them. However, if you want me to call you a dick to make you sleep better at night, I will. Incidentally, I think it's ironic that in the five pillars page, IAR means that all the rules aren't solid, except the ones on that page. And, if you read the five pillars page, pretty much every policy and rule is there. Ironic? Maybe IAR has fewer teeth than we've ever though. Rockstar (^T/_C) 04:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are too many "See Also" links then it becomes unreadable. 2 or 3 key pointers is enough to digest! Nice move. --PopUpPirate 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I restored the "See also" links that directly had a relationship to IAR. I don't think anything else (including WP:BOLD and WP:DICK) need to be mentioned. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially because pretty much everything is already there in the "WP Principles" box at the bottom. No need to double it up. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the harm in the "see also" links section? >Radiant< 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Before, it was a massive collection of parallel links (such as WP:BOLD). It was rather bloated. While I don't agree with the outright removal that Tony did, I do think that it should only have items that are directly related (for example, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• I removed an essay which is essentially my writing at this point. If it had company it would feel less embarassed, you see. Maybe it can go back later. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Why, exactly, do we need two shortcuts? The person who added the second one, WP:IGNORE, used existence as an argument, and the person who reverted my removal justified it by saying other pages are like that. In other words, it has yet to be explained why they are needed. (I was also sort of surprised I was reverted with an antivandalism script, but I'll let that slide.) Picaroon (Talk) 19:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, both arguments have about as much weight behind them... personally, I'd say let's just keep both of them (but I don't care that much to begin with). Now, can we please stop arguing over the number of shortcuts and get back to arguing about the font size? A much better use of our time... EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer we get back to bickering over whether to have a customized policy-box or standard one, actually, but every protracted argument needs other minor disagreements to break it up. (Sort of like Garfield taking a break from dinner for a snack.) Picaroon (Talk) 20:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about bickering about the font size? I miss that. Rockstar (^T/_C) 21:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't. :-p --Deskana (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• In general we list one or two shortcuts per page, regardless of the fact that many pages have 5+ shortcuts. The point of the shortcut box is to provide an easy mnemonic or two; the point of the whatlinkshere button is to give a comprehensive list. >Radiant< 11:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

A poll says nothing about the opinions of the people who do not put their name to it, and it says nothing about whether the people who vote for or against a policy actually understand it. A poll gives equal weight to Jimbo Wales as to a banned user. A poll gives equal weight to someone who has given deep thought to the issue and has written encyclopedia articles and policies for years as it does to someone who has semi-automatically reverted vandals a little for the past month who upon discovering IAR yesterday submitted an instinctive reaction and never looked back. You might try filtering out all the voters who have less than 100 edits outside their user-space, and then compelling a statistically significant number of other Wikipedia editors to voice their opinion on the issue, but that still would not ensure an informed opinion and would be a waste of time when the more efficient course of action is to have a reasoned discussion. —Centrx→talk • 23:19, 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. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 23:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, IAR is by far the best policy we have on Wikipedia. No question! Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So, anyway, what are we discussing here? - Chardish 23:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember. Who cares? Rockstar (^T/_C) 23:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I care. I think this policy needs clarifying, others (including yourself) seem to agree with me, and all we've managed to do since updating the page to reflect our changes is get a small group ...a cabal, maybe?... ; ) of hyper-protective editors to unquestioningly revert anything we try to do. Surely there's somewhere we need to go from here. - Chardish 23:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I would love to see changes to the policy. That said, considering that your version was by far the best wording we've had for IAR, and seeing what happened in the past few days (we're back to the old version? SURPRISE!), it's beginning to seem pointless. Too many bureaucrats here not wanting change. Rockstar (^T/_C) 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Planning of straw poll #2

I think we really need a second straw poll on this topic, given that the first one is nearing a year in age and a lot of discussion is being generated here. Here are some possible questions I think can be asked.

Please note that this is not the actual straw poll, but rather the beginning of plans to create a straw poll.

• Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? (Answer for each.)
  • Ignore all rules currently enjoys consensus.
  • This wording of IAR enjoys consensus: "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them".
  • The "spirit of IAR" enjoys consensus.
• Which of the following best describes your current feelings towards the existence of IAR? Choose one.
  • IAR should exist, and the version above is adequate.
  • IAR should exist, but needs to be worded better in a form that is vague and open to individual interpretation.
  • IAR should exist, but needs to be worded better in a form that is explicit and subject to limited interpretation.
  • IAR should not exist in any form.
• How strong do you think IAR should be, in your ideal form of wording?
  • A foundation issue.
  • "Rule #1", superseding all other Wikipedia policy.
  • A policy.
  • A guideline.
  • A suggestion.
• Which of the following, if any, do you think are unacceptable rules to ignore under any circumstances? (Acceptable to ignore/unacceptable to ignore with each.)
  • Foundation issues (NPOV is included here)
  • Core content policies (verifiability, biographies of living persons, no original research
  • What Wikipedia is not
  • Behavior towards fellow editors (no personal attacks, assume good faith, civility)
• Which of the following, if any, do you see as the "spirit of IAR" or the "reason for IAR"? Agree with all that apply.
  • Consensus trumps policy.
  • Editors should use common sense.
  • Editors should not be required to learn the rules.
  • The rules cannot account for all scenarios.
  • With experience comes less reliance on policy.
  • The rules have no loopholes.
  • The rules cannot be lawyered with.
  • Administrators should have the ability to overturn consensus.
  • Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not rules.
  • Issues are to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
  • Rules are descriptive, not prescriptive.
  • The spirit of a rule, not its wording, is what is important.

Comments? - Chardish 03:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you think a straw poll will actually accomplish anything, or just cause arguments? (This is an honest question, not a trick question nor a question intended to cause arguments itself) --Deskana (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it will shed light on which ideas have consensus (or are near consensus) and which ones don't. We throw out the ones that don't, and work on formulating the ones that do into a workable document. If this cannot be accomplished then this page is little more than a community essay. - Chardish 03:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Polling is not a substitute for discussion. We do not create/eliminate/reclassify policy via polling, nor is the community entitled to overrule Jimbo on this matter. (He deemed WP:IAR a policy, so that's what it is.) Straw polls can be useful tools, but much of the above is rather pointless. —David Levy 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

We are perfectly entitled to overrule Jimbo, he has no formal power here any more. Haukur 09:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What in the world gave you that idea? —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm, besides Office actions, Jimbo begs us to treat him like any other editor. There are a bunch of diffs that have shown that in the past. Wikipedia is not a hierarchy, it's a community. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo is a member of the Board but he is one among many. He is not the chairman of the Board and he does not control a majority of the Board. The Board has passed no resolution giving him any particular authority over this project. He used to have such authority, of course, by virtue of basically owning the whole thing, but he doesn't anymore. Haukur 18:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

He still has authority, if only because lots of people think he does. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 18:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Haukur 18:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Please cite a source for your claim that Jimbo no longer possesses such authority. Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines indicates otherwise.

2. Jimbo was the Chair of the Board of Trustees when he deemed WP:IAR a policy. Has Florence Devouard issued a contrary proclamation since succeeding him, or are you under the impression that every executive decision ever made by Jimbo instantly expired in October? —David Levy 19:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Please cite a source that I'm not a super-intelligent kangaroo. That policy page is simply out of date. 2. When Jimbo last edited this page there was nothing to indicate that he was making any sort of authoritative proclamation rather than simply offering his opinion. Haukur 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring #1 (because you subsequently provided a thoughtful response below), I must simply disagree with #2. Jimbo knew darn well that editing the page with the summary "IAR is policy, always has been" would be perceived as an official act. When expressing an opinion that could be misinterpreted as such, Jimbo is careful to note this fact. —David Levy 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, you deserved a more serious answer to the first question. The best place to start is probably Wikipedia:10 things you did not know about Wikipedia and the talk page of that page where Erik Möller explains the functioning of the WMF and addresses the issue of Jimbo's (lack of) authority at some length. I can dig up quotes from Jimbo too if you like. Haukur 20:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

All of which changes nothing, I'm afraid. If Jimbo said its policy, then enough people will agree with him (because he's Jimbo) that it will stay policy. Whether or not Jimbo has power de jure doesn't matter (he may or may not, I don't know); de facto Jimbo is the ultimate authority on Wikipedia. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedians are quite so reluctant to disagree with him. Haukur 20:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Some aren't. Enough will always agree with him to make anything he says fact, at least for now. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 20:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While there is a great deal of discussion about Jimbo not unilaterally controlling the Wikimedia Foundation, I don't see any statement on the project page or its talk page that Jimbo no longer possesses the authority to create policy. To me, the statement that Jimbo's "influence is based on respect, not power" reflects the fact that people look to Jimbo for guidance because they respect him (not because they're required to consult him on every matter), and this has been the case for quite some time.

Yes, please quote statements from Jimbo indicating that he no longer possesses the authority to create policy. —David Levy 20:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This poll does not replace discussion; it supplements it. I think it's fair to say that peoples' personal feelings on this issue are acting as an obstacle to consensus, and, due to the revert-happy crowd, that our only options are indefinite quibbling or allow the page to remain as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chardish (talk • contribs) 11:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC).

I have nothing against straw polls, but they are non-binding. We do not enact/repeal policies via majority voting. Thus, some of the above questions are useless. —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of the questions deal with matters of opinion - they ask "what do you believe?" and "what do you think?" The one question that doesn't is asking if you agree that IAR has consensus or not. I bring this up because it seems like many people believe that IAR does have consensus, even though the previous poll seems to indicate that it doesn't. - Chardish 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We don't determine consensus via majority voting. You're actually attempting to go a step further by asking people to vote on whether they believe that other people support WP:IAR.

And again, this is moot; the community cannot eliminate or "demote" the policy. —David Levy 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't make it clear that I am well aware this is non-binding. It is an attempt to establish an idea of what direction to take the consensus building. It is a tool to help us better understand what we want as a community. And yes, the community can "demote" or eliminate policy. There is nothing sacrosanct about IAR. - Chardish 03:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm troubled by your statement that the previous poll appeared to indicate a lack of consensus. Again, we don't determine such consensus via polling.

2. A non-binding straw poll can supplement a discussion, but it isn't helpful to ask people to vote on whether or not there is consensus for a policy.

3. I meant that the community cannot eliminate or "demote" this policy. Consensus would not override Jimbo's decision. —David Levy 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that consensus is not determined by polling, but polling can evaluate whether there is a consensus on a particular point or not. See point #9 at this guideline. Also, if there is no consensus that there is consensus on the article, how can there possibly be consensus on the article? (I apologize if the wording on that sentence was awkward.) We'll continue the discussion about Jimbo below. - Chardish 11:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, straw polls can be used to gauge consensus. This is not, however, done by voting on whether or not consensus exists.

2. We determine consensus directly, not by asking people whether there's consensus that there's consensus (or consensus that there's consensus that there's consensus, et cetera).

3. Again, this policy cannot be repealed via community consensus. —David Levy 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with having a discussion/poll here is that the issue of "does IAR mean this" is readily conflated with "should the IAR policy page be rewritten to state this explicitly"... I think a discussion on Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means, publicized as needed, might be more productive. If aspects of that essay were found to enjoy very broad consensus and support, we could then examine how best to integrate them here. -- Visviva 11:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with simply linking to the page? —David Levy 12:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing that I'm aware of; nor is there anything wrong with dynamic experimentation, even if it always leaves us back where we started. -- Visviva 12:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No argument there. —David Levy 12:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Too many people are too hard-hearted about this page, unfortunately, for the wiki process to work by simply letting people edit the page a little bit at a time. There is a sizable number who simply wants to revert to the version as currently shown. - Chardish 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's role

I'm starting a new section because the one above had become too cluttered and indented. David says that Jimbo has been careful to note when he's acting as a regular member of the community and when he's not. I have to disagree with that, I think Jimbo often hasn't made it clear - perhaps not even to himself - what hat he's wearing at any given time. I think the living people category affair was a good example, I can maybe dig up the quotes but it would take time and maybe it's not needed.

David asks for quotes from Jimbo himself about less Jimbo power. Here's one: "I also liken my role to the British monarchy. My desire is that over time my power and role in the community becomes less and less and less so eventually I'll go out and shake hands with bomb victims and be on the news and say some helpful things but my actual power should be taken by the community, by the institutions we're building." This is from a talk he gave in 2005 (at Oxford, around minute 40) and what he's describing there has basically come to pass. We now have a community majority in the board, a community elected person as a chairman and Jimbo happily travelling around the world shaking hands. Haukur 21:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...but are any of them bomb victims? That's the most important thing.
I'm just being silly because this whole thing is being taken entirely too seriously. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I don't have any diffs handy, but I've seen many instances in which Jimbo has explicitly noted that he's commenting as an ordinary editor.

2. What I'd be interested to see is a statement by Jimbo that he no longer possesses the authority to create policy. —David Levy 22:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course he can still create policy just like you and I can make suggestions and if they are good and enough people agree they can become policy. And suggestions made by Jimbo will, of course, have a head start in getting attention compared to suggestions made by me or you. But Jimbo's suggestions still have to gain the consent of the community to become policy. In fact, the last time he tried to create a policy it got nowhere fast, see User:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. If you want explicit confirmation that he can't, on his own, mandate a policy whether the community likes it or not I suggest we just ask him. Haukur 22:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The answer will have no bearing on this policy, but it is something that we ought to know. —David Levy 22:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's real power lies in his ability to sway community opinion. This is partly because he's Jimbo, and partly because his vision of Wikipedia is one that many of us find remarkably coherent and persuasive. With regard to this page, I believe his intervention took place in the middle of an edit war over whether IAR was policy or not controversy over the proper status of IAR. There already were a number of editors supporting this idea, and Jimbo's intervention was sufficient to raise their proportion to a working consensus. Jimbo didn't create this policy, but simply helped to resolve a dispute over its status. Leastwise that's how I see it. -- Visviva 03:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... there was certainly a lot happening here in the summer of 2006. Looking over the edit history leaves me still somewhat puzzled as to what was actually going on. I'm sure someone can clear things up, though. -- Visviva 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently asked Jimbo about his role at Wikipedia. His response:

I have often compared my community role to that of constitutional monarch, and specifically to the role of the Queen of England. This is itself just a poor metaphor to explain my desire that my actual role diminish over time to become mostly symbolic. I just want to wave at parades and cut ribbons at ceremonies. :) But for now I actually do still have some work to do. I can only govern here to a slight degree, and only then with the "consent of the government", which mostly means through the support of the most thoughtful and powerful admins.

I strongly disagree with his reference to "powerful admins" (whatever happened to administrators being "just regular users with a mop and bucket?") Nonetheless, full discussion here. - Chardish 03:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - he was doing really well up until he said "consent of the government" and "powerful admins". That's where I start to disagree. I am an admin - we aren't the government. We're like the guy who has the keys to the cabinet where the mop is located, and others must ask for them to use that key. Otherwise, yeah, I do more regular editing than admin stuff. Rollback was no big shake, since I'd been doing it via TWINKLE for a long time prior. In fact, I still use TWINKLE rather than the WP rollback function. If Jimbo had said "consent of the governed" and stopped there, I would have been happy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is he meant to say "consent of the governed". Whoever heard of "consent of the government"? But even with that weird (cute?) wording the message is still clear - he can't establish new policy on his own. Are you satisfied on that point, David? Haukur 10:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it isn't clear to me that this is what he meant (though I can see how someone would arrive at such a conclusion). A straightforward statement would convince me, of course. That, however, would not mean that he has "no formal power" here (which doesn't accurately describe any member of Wikimedia's Board of Trustees). It would mean that he has significantly less power than he did before (though it wouldn't affect his executive decisions made prior to 21 October 2006). —David Levy 11:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still not satisfied that "declarations from Jimbo Wales" are insufficient to make policy? Could you give an example of a statement that would be straightforward enough to convince you of this? You're right that any member of the Board has power here in some sense but since it is a Board but not, at least in theory, an executive, it has to act as a body to order anything done. It's like with the branches of government. Robert M. Gates can order stuff done. Ron Paul not so much. Congress as a body, certainly.

There is no indication that Jimbo's edit to IAR was an executive decision and no reason for us to think it was. I could go into more detail on this but I'm growing puzzled with your continued insistence on this point. Do you feel the text of the page is so hard for you to defend on its merits that the only way to ensure it sticks is to frame it as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

Anyway, even if Jimbo's edit was somehow a mandate we had to follow it would still be no means preclude a return to the version I prefer. If IAR has always been policy then surely the original text of the policy is still valid. Haukur 11:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. A straightforward enough statement by Jimbo would be something along the lines of "I no longer possess the authority to unilaterally create Wikipedia policy" or a simple "yes"/"no" response to such a question.

2. I agree with your statement about the board members' inherent authority. I was addressing your previous claim that Jimbo has "no formal power" here.

3. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with the page's current text. It seems obvious to me that Jimbo's edit was a formal declaration of policy, but it certainly didn't mandate any particular wording. The original policy is valid (but poorly written and incomplete, in my opinion). —David Levy 12:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Excellent, thank you. 2. Okay, we're in agreement. 3. We understand each other, then. We still disagree on the nature of that edit but continuing that line of argument probably wouldn't be very fruitful so I won't. At least now now. Haukur 12:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Consent of the government" incidentally makes sense in the context of monarchy, rather than social contract theory, which may be waht you are thinking of. e.g. enacting formula. Now therefore Fearless Leader, on advise of and with consent of the Cabal and a Straw Poll, enacts as follows.... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

IAR and my role

I still have the ability to make policy here or to veto policy changes. Could I do so against the overwhelming opposition of the community? No, I doubt it, but then, why would I try? What are the limits of my ability to make policy? No one knows, not even me, but if anyone wants to stir up a revolt to overthrow the constitutional monarchy and established social institutions of Wikipedia, well, you'd best have a really good reason. And I'm basically not doing anything insane and tend to try to be ahead of the community in terms of giving up power before anyone ever tries to take it from me. :) So, I advise against open revolt, however interesting the theoretical question might be for all of us.

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

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

And yes, I meant to type "consent of the governed" not "consent of the government." :-) --Jimbo Wales 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• +1 for keeping it very, very short. As short as possible without compromising sense. This is pretty much the only policy on Wikipedia that prescribes Clue rather than trying (usually with mixed success) to describe it. Guy (Help!) 15:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Clue is good. But some people (not you) need to realize that Cluesticking something against broad opposition is in most cases wrong. -Amarkov moo! 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem with IAR is that, in a very large community with millions of editors, it allows those with power (admins and bureaucrats) to use their powers as they see fit, and to circumvent the processes laid down to ensure proper community participation. IAR was fine when Wikipedia was a small institution; it needs to be scrapped now, or at least rewritten. This isn't "process-wonkery". Nor am I making an assumption of bad faith on the part of admins; it is possible to misuse powers without intentionally abusing them, and what one user assumes is "plain common sense" may be flat-out wrong to another. Someone can be acting in good faith under IAR, doing something which they believe is 100% necessary to improve the encyclopedia, but in the process ignoring everyone else's opinion. Walton^talk 18:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had this watchlisted for a while and never contributed anything. The worst thing about IAR is that it ever had to be written down and made into formal policy. It should be "common sense" that if rules prohibit you from doing the right thing you should ignore them. The fact that it has been written down made it a policy to be abused. There are "real world" equivalents to this policy. Some professions call it discretion.

Since I haven't been following this entire debate very closely, I am probably repeating someone's thoughts, but what the policy really means to me is a granting of discretion to all editors to act accordingly. If I've rehashed an old argument that you guys have been having for months and annoyed you, I apologize.  :-) Cheers, daveh4h 19:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

What can I say. We're on a Wiki where it was felt necessary to tell people in excruciating detail how to be civil. (And how could you follow this debate closely? There's been more text in the last few months than in all the years preceding it. I sure haven't read it all.) Best, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: recent change

Use your best judgement, treat your fellow contributors with respect, and focus on building the encyclopedia.

I like this sentiment and I'm sure it belongs somewhere, but I'm not seeing the relevance to WP:IAR. I think the virtue of this policy is its brevity and clarity - I don't think adding self-evident encourages to use common sense etc. really help. All policies should be exercised using best judgment, treating others with repsect and with the goal of building an encyclopedia - but I don't think we need to include that in every policy. Given the longstanding nature of the wording of this policy I think its for those who wish to make changes to establish a strong consensus for those changes. WjBscribe 15:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally I care more about the page giving good advice than it staying tightly relevant. Sure, the virtue is brevity- for those who get it. If a few extra words can increase the chances of someone getting it, I don't see that they hurt anything. Friday (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And I understand the desire for brevity as well. The relevance here is in trying to convey that judgement, thoughtfulness etc are much more important than the rules. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well put. Can we put it back in? Haukur 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still convinced that its is helpful. Does anyone disagree that common sense and good judgment should be used when applying any policy? The addition seems self-evident and I'm not understanding what it adds to the page. Where the rules stop you from improving the encyclopedia ignore them - what more is there to say? WjBscribe 16:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That this statement, categorical as it sounds, is not meant to imply that you should ignore other people when you think they're getting in the way. Haukur 16:35, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

All of that, plus telling sensible people to stop worrying and focus on what matters. In Guy's terms, Cluesticking Wikilawyers should not overshadow reassuring regular folk, and it'd be nice to better convey that Clue is both necessary AND sufficient. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's true, but worrying about upsetting people also shouldn't stop us from taking actions beneficial to the encyclopedia. To quote that old adage - "You can please all of the people all of the time". People should exercise the discretion WP:IAR affords respectfully but it would be a make to change the policy such that it is applied timidly. WjBscribe 19:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what I meant by my Cluesticking comment. Timidity is the opposite of what I want. I'll take a different approach: compare the ancient "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business" to the modern "If the rules prevent you from improving and maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them" version. The old version is not much of a cluestick - the newer version is better for that. But in doing so it has lost some of the step-back-and-relax value and frankly the emboldening value to people who are sensible to begin with, and will not likely ever need cluesticking. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 20:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rant on IAR meaning

(Forgive the length, please...) Is part of the confusion that arises from IAR the thought that it somehow conveys a level of protection to those who edit Wikipedia? "I can do whatever the heck I want because I can always fall back on IAR!" I've never seen IAR successfully used on an individual level as a defense, even though it's frequently cited as defense. People see the operative words, "Rules... prevent... You... ignore... them." Those of us from the United States, who may have a cultural bias towards individual rights and expression, may especially hold this to be equivalent to a Bill of Rights to protect the Wikipedia editor. When in fact the word "You" is probably the least important word in the sentence.

To me, IAR is something which protects the encyclopedia, not the individual. IAR does not protect one from sanction, reversions, blocks, or bans. (IAR coupled with demonstrated good faith might, but that is no guarantee.) IAR does not defend from RfC, Arbcom decisions, or pissed off editors leaving angry notes on Talk pages. IAR is about the Encyclopedia, and giving editors a certain sense of freedom to move past the rules and not worry about 41 other policies that must be followed lest trouble ensue. If the judgments which follow an edit justify that the encyclopedia is improved thereby. That's it.

Anyone who tries to use it for anything else than that will be put into the hurt locker by the community at large, sooner or later. That statement isn't retribution or stalking or license to avoid WP:CIVIL. It's prophesy or soothsaying. And since the policy attempts to alleviate the stress of process wonkery and instruction creep keeping editors from editing, in my humble opinion that should be the focus of the statement.

Were I god of Wikipedia (and with more dictatorial powers than Jimbo Wales has ever had,) I'd rewrite it as follows:

"The encyclopedia may be improved by persons who edit while ignoring all the rules." Or even more briefly, "The encyclopedia may be improved while ignoring rules." Or, "Don't let the rules keep you from improving the encyclopedia - ignore them and edit until someone shows you a policy or guideline otherwise."

So maybe I'm glad I'm not the god of Wikipedia. But whatever comes up, let it be short and focused upon improving the encyclopedia, and diminishing (or ignoring) the potential of it as a defense. LaughingVulcan 23:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Turner v. Ostrowe, 828 So. 2d 1212. I deleted it as "original research". No policy says I am allowed to do so. Bad decision? No, if you saw the article, you'd agree. Ignoring the rules to improve the encyclopedia? Yes. The reason people have never seen "successful applications of IAR" is because they expect there to be a big fuss about it, and expect it to involve something like deletion of Main Page or something else suitably ridiculous. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 01:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that this policy says you're allowed to do so. : ) - Your Deletionist Friend, Chardish 02:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not allow for speedy deletion of such content, last time I checked. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 02:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I'm sorry if I communicated that there are no successful applications of IAR. But does anyone know where IAR was successfully (and solely) applied as a defense of action? I'm especially thinking of RfCs and Arbitrations. It reads like to me that you were applying WP:OR, though I suppose you could say you were ignoring criteria for speedy deletion. I sure don't want to see 5,000 XfDs per day. For clarification, though, if the editor who created the article came back to you and requested AfD instead, would you do it? (And, of course, you might be completely right, and I may be completely off my nut about this.) LaughingVulcan 03:20, 30 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)

Any rule or guideline exists under some sort of authority, who authorised it and can therefore also authorise modifications and exceptions to it.

(At least, that's my personal belief, but according to atheism it doesn't apply to physical laws, and according to both atheism and many but not all schools of theology it doesn't apply to logical laws . But it still applies to most rules and guidelines, even in these world views.)

The difference is, with a rule you need to apply for exemption before the fact; With a guideline you can do it after the fact, and in practice may never get around to actually doing so. And that's fine so long as you do have a valid justification, but if you don't, then you're in contempt of the authority in question, just as much with a guideline as with a rule.

So yes, strictly speaking they're all guidelines, and no, it doesn't make a lot of difference. Andrewa 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on rewording this

This was one of the first policies, made by Jimbo himself. I think that the current wording is proper, and not trying to expand this whole thing in to a long debate. The wording is clear:If the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them.

I would guess, before reading any above comments, that there may be vandals and sockpuppets being blocked, and claiming that they were just ignoring all rules. However, this is inappropriate, no matter how you look at it, because the policy clearly states that you are permitted to ignore rules if you are maintaining or improving Wikipedia. I don't believe this should be reworded. GrooveDog (talk) 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph, the current wording only originated a year ago. "Jimbo's policy" looked quite a bit different. Jimbo has said himself that no policy, like Wikipedia itself, is ever solid, and he even said above that he'd support a rewording. Just saying... Rockstar (^T/_C) 03:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought

Hey, I've not participated in this discussion or anything, but, ignore them sounds a bit shortsighted to me. Wouldn't it be much better to improve them? After ignoring them, of course. Atropos 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

In the final accounting, nothing besides "Ignore them" has ever been found to capture the spirit of wikipedia, that we are writing an encyclopedia, not a bunch of rules, quite as well. Thanatosimii 23:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That's nice. I feel a little rude saying that, but that's all I can really say.

The problem is that rules should never hinder anyone from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia and any time they do they need to be improved. Atropos 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the idea is that the rules can't possibly address every situation, and it's more efficient to cut the occasional corner than to try to write down every case in which a corner should be bypassed. Sometimes exceptions should be made, per discretion. We aren't trying to write a formally complete system to describe that fact.

Our goal isn't to codify what we do to an arbitrary level of detail. The rules are an approximation of actual practice, and while we improve them over time, we recognize that keeping the rules airtight isn't the priority - the encyclopedia is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So when someone decides not to be bold and ignore the rules next time the problem with that rule comes around and the encyclopedia fails to be improved? And the time after that? Atropos 00:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In any particular case where a rule regularly fails, it will eventually be improved, and that's great. In the meanwhile, if someone ignores it and neglects to improve it, that may not be ideal, but it's not terrible either. Part of the point of IAR is that you don't have to become a rules editor in order to be an encyclopedia editor. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Participation in legislative politics should be entirely voluntary, and should not be a requirement, and I think not even a recommendation, when ignoring rules. As a result, our rules are less correct or complete than they could be, but then again, our articles are also less correct and complete than they could be, which is more important to deal with. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

While it is not bad to improve the rules, to replace "ignore them" with "improve them" either presumes that the rules can be truely absolutely perfected, which is dubious, or sacrifices the encyclopedia when the rules can't but we have to stick to them. The point is, encyclopedia trumps all. el fin. Thanatosimii 01:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm not suggesting any change to the page, which is a silly page to have at all; as was said above, its really just common sense. If it said improve them, it obviously wouldn't belong at Ignore all rules. I am suggesting to no one in particular that, because making the encyclopedia difficult to improve or maintain is antithetical to the goal of a rule, the rule needs to be improved. The only thing wrong with this page (which can't be incorporated without destroying its brevity; the wit of the soul) is that it doesn't make it clear that consensus (specific consensus on an issue, not the consensus which defined a rule) is not a rule, and ignoring that is just being wrong, which seems to be the issue people have with this "rule." Atropos 03:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is included in the see also subpage. Any rewrite of this page is sillier than the page itself. Atropos 03:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Got fat *again*

It got fat again, so I trimmed it [2]. --Tony Sidaway 10:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert wars do nothing towards achieving consensus. Repeatedly reverting to the revision you prefer [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] is not an act of maintenance, but rather a stubborn insistence that you are right and all other editors are wrong. This is contrary to every principle Wikipedia upholds. - Chardish 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Those are all completely different diffs and separate issues. Also, this is irrelevant to most every Wikipedia principle. —Centrx→talk • 16:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The principles I mention being violated are ownership of articles (by the implicit statement that there is some rule that says that the page must conform to a certain person's vision) and reversion wars (by the repeated reversion of the page to a single wording, without a strong attempt to reach accord with the other editors.) - Chardish 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not interested in edit warring. However when this policy document gets fat I like to clear out the unnecessary tripe. --Tony Sidaway 16:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The document does not "get fat." Other people modify the document in an attempt to improve it. It would be a gesture of good faith to incorporate their wishes for what the document should be when you make your changes, and preferably to not refer to their good-faith edits as "unnecessary tripe." - Chardish 16:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

While I support the retention of the page's current version, Tony's attitude regarding this matter troubles me greatly. He has been dismissive and disrespectful of his fellow editors. Regardless of the ends, his nonchalant "it got fat again" explanations are downright insulting. —David Levy 17:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with David Levy. Calling other editors' works tripe is beyond uncivil. Atropos 07:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Also the first one doesn't count. In that case, it was me he was reverting, and you can hardly hold that against anyone. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

So...

Apparently we now have three people who did not join in the discussion about the expanded version of this page objecting to the expansion because it wasn't properly discussed. Does that strike anyone as circular reasoning? >Radiant< 13:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3 is a concensus in itself though ;) --PopUpPirate 13:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words you admit there's consensus for the new expanded version. Thank you for making that clear. >Radiant< 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He meant the three objectors, I'm sure... ha ha, only serious. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 14:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Basically, yes. That's why this page never goes anywhere. I love it, though. Every few days, it's just add text, revert text, add text, change text, revert text, {{pp-dispute}}. It's like a roller coaster, just without the annoying kids and vomit. Rockstar (^T/_C) 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Worse

The suggested revised wording does nothing other than increase verbiage.

Look at previous versions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus for change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit

{{editprotected}}
Very simple:

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

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

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

Just my two cents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposed short wording

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

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

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

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

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

I have some small ideas for revision:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consensus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way ahead of you.[8] The last few days I've been most active on the Faroese Wikipedia, though.[9] Haukur 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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