This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Singular "rule" vs plural "rules" 2 i just wanted to say 3 Demotion to guideline 4 Brevity. 5 Related link 6 Change 7 Flag as historical 8 Merge from 9 Contradictory 10 No contradiction 10.1 Policies v. Guidelines 11 Valid application of IAR? 12 Title 13 Policy cat discussion 14 Revision 15 Exception 16 Examples of IAR 17 Essays 18 Wikipedia:Understanding IAR 19 BLP v IAR 20 Funny 21 How has IAR been used in actual practice on Wikipedia? 22 concesus 23 This policy 24 Tweak to categories 25 Demoting this policy?

Singular "rule" vs plural "rules"

The article text says, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." but the associated sound file says "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them.". Shouldn't we be consistant? Thomprod (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the audio version is outdated and should be rerecorded. —David Levy 19:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

i just wanted to say

i like how short this article is for how awesome it is

that is all Ytcracker (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a powerful statement that I interpret as "help the site first, worry about (stepping over) rules later". --an odd name 00:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Demotion to guideline

I think that this page should only be a guideline, and NOT policy. Who's with me? Jonathan321 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the policy that set me free and convinced me that I could be productive here. It has a Zen-like simplicity that is typically hard to interpret until you finally "get it" - then it is utter simplicity. Misinterpretation of the policy sometimes causes problems, not the policy itself. And it is fundamental.

For those reasons, count me out. Franamax (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not just a policy, it is the most important policy. I think it should be policy. Past discussions on this subject have supported it remaining policy too. Chillum 01:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Brevity.

This policy page is too short. Surely it must be longer - examples, for example? I only understand it from seing someone paraphrase it to - Use common sense. Also, can anyone see a particular point in time where this can come into play? That would be a useful addition. This article needs expanding. --82.46.179.208 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you want long, take a walk back through this talk page and its archives :) You will find lengthy discussion on why exactly this policy is best kept to its stripped-down 12-word essential. Basically, if we include an example saying "this is where you would ignore all rules", someone will take the example as meaning "in this case, I should always ignore rules", which is not true. To aid in your understanding though, you can have a look at the linked essays, WP:WIARM and WP:UIAR.

As for a point in time where IAR comes into play, when your own understanding tells you it's time, it's time. Until then, watch how other people interpret the policy and how successful they are at doing so. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

WIARM would produce that problem, but UIAR would not; it lays out the principles and the working methods of IAR instead of approaching it as a "laundry list".--Father Goose (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any reason for maintaining WIAR as a separate page from IAR at this point, especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off deleting the main page. The nutshell summary is fine, but reducing the whole article to that summary seems to be a rather poor compromise. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Um... "especially considering that almost any first-time reader of IAR is going to need to read WIAR before they go off deleting the main page." Where are you finding such first-time readers? People who read IAR and then go off and so something stupid on account of it are in a vanishingly small minority - I'm not sure I've ever seen such a thing happen. Can you cite any example based on experience of people's misunderstanding of this page, showing that any harm has actually been caused by it? -GTBacchus^(talk)

I like how it is. People seem to get it well enough and if they don't we will just hit the magic revert button. Chillum 23:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Related link

I don't know if this is appropriate for the policy page, but this TED talk explains nicely the reason why IAR is important.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree! This is an excellent talk. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Websites that start playing sounds when loaded are really annoying. Chillum 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Very. Pyritie (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Change

Flag as historical

Merge from

See this link for more information. -- IRP ☎ 20:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Or see the archives for the massive amounts of discussion that led us to retain the current setup. —David Levy 20:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory

No contradiction

I'm late to the previous discussion, but I'd like to contribute my two bytes to the discussion all the same, as an aid for next time.

IAR is, to me, a meta-rule, a rule about rules. IAR resolves conflicts between other rules. To wit:

• RULE: The mission of Wikipedia is....
• RULES: The rules of Wikipedia are....
• IAR rule: Where the mission and the rules conflict, the mission takes precedence.

As the previous discussion noted, IAR is indeed self-referential; IAR may itself be ignored in the service of the mission of Wikipedia. There is no conflict here; when following the rules serves the mission better than ignoring rules, IAR is in fact followed.

Much thanks to the game of Nomic for the applications of meta-rules. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not self referential because a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia cannot itself prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Chillum 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IAR is a rule; IAR refers to rules; hence the self-reference. Otherwise I agree with you on the substance, in that IAR in good practice does not require ignoring IAR (non-self-contradictory). --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IAR does not refer to rules, it refers to rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I think we agree on the larger issue. Chillum 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've found being involved with current and controversial topics, WP:IAR allows people to invoke it whenever it suits the situation. If enough editors are on a particular topic, mob-rule ensues making a mockery of Wikipedia Policies. You might as well not have policies at all. Flipper9 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that there is a use for WP:IAR when you get into a situation where official policies conflict with one another, the policies have got to mean something. Therefore IAR should be something that is used sparingly. Flipper9 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I "use IAR" with every single edit I ever make. That's over 30,000 so far, applications of IAR. I don't use it sparingly. It defines the fundamental mindset with which I approach Wikipedia. That's precisely what it should do.

Wikipedia is not a formal system, and attempting to apply formal logic to it will lead to grief. I say this because I've seen it happen over and over again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we should just get rid of all Wikipedia policies except for WP:IAR and be honest about the fact that Wikipedia is a democracy, mob-led, or anarchist-based. To me it seems that everyone editing, improving, or generating those policies are just wasting their time. Flipper9 (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, our policies and guidelines serve as a good framework (based upon what generally works). It's when we follow rules for the sake of following the rules that they cause problems, and that's what WP:IAR protects us against. —David Levy 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because we have decided that our rules, policies, guidelines, and social mores are not meant to bind us like chains does not mean they are without value. We can use these rules to better understand what the project is about, to demonstrate a preexisting consensus, and of course as a guide in regard to our best practices. Most importantly we can use them as a starting point to build a better set of ideals. All the while we are free to pursue our primary goal of building, improving and maintaining a free encyclopedia without being hampered by these preconceived notions. Chillum 02:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flipper9, hi. "The rules" here are things that people wrote down because they worked once. They got to stay "the rules", because they kept working over and over again. That doesn't mean that they always work, but it also doesn't mean that they're valueless. It means that they're to be carefully considered when we make our decisions. That is the message of IAR. The rules are not to be followed mindlessly, but to be carefully considered each time.

This is not to contradict, but to complement and support, what David Levy and Chillum have said above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should not be "bound" by rules when they don't make sense. But from my experience, WP:IAR is invoked when people either don't agree with the policy because they want to push a POV, or because it's just not convenient to follow policies. I think it's used for much more than it was intended for. We need the rule, but if it's not used sparingly and only when necessary, it allows you to completely ignore prior work used to develop policies. That's why I think we should just consider Policies the same as Guidelines because WP:IAR makes them the same since it is applied so liberally. My POV on this comes from trying to convince scientific and medical professionals to contribute to Wikipedia, and I believe that Policies are a good way to improve the quality of Wikipedia content if applied. Flipper9 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I apply IAR every single time I edit this site. IAR means a lot more than "break the rules when there's a good reason to do so". It means "don't think in terms of rules, at all. Put the very concept of a rule out of your mind." That's a much, much, much stronger statement.

If people are "citing" IAR for silly reasons, the solution is to talk to those people, and sort that out. In my experience, it's quite easy to cut through spurious applications of IAR. All it takes is two people with common sense saying, "that's silly".

If you can cite an example of someone using IAR incorrectly, please do let me know. If it's part of a current dispute, I, or someone else watching this page, can very probably help.

Of course policies are a good way to improve Wikipedia; that's why they exist. However, saying that policies are a way to improve the project completely misses the point. The best way to improve the project is to just do it. The rules can catch up later, or not. I am very interested in your experience of people trying to use IAR as a "blank check". You should point people who do that to WP:WIARM, which I think makes it clear that IAR is both much more, and much less than it appears to be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to bring in any current controversies into this discussion since it's not appropriate to bring in a current conflict and muddle the discussion. For example, ignoring MOS:MED with reason stating that rules shouldn't be followed because WP:IAR is the rule, or ignoring WP:NOR for the same reason that WP:IAR trumps all. The application of WP:IAR allows you to disregard any policy that you wish for whatever reason. Of course you should just do it, and fix an article, but if you have multiple editors, then all rules go out the window. Why are policies good? The community has worked on them, and come to the consensus that they help to standardize and bring about some order that makes Wikipedia a good and consistent resource. If you don't follow the policies, then every article will come to its own consensus on how to do things, and standardization isn't possible. I just don't see how policies have any more weight than guidelines in the current climate. That's fine with me if that's what the community wants. It just has to be stated that Policies have no more weight than Guidelines if we are going to be honest because of how the application of WP:IAR is carried out. Flipper9 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You see, IAR does not "allow" people to disregard anything. IAR requires that we disregard nothing, but rather approach each situation with mindfulness, and the goals of the project in mind. If there are situations where IAR is being used to "trump" other things, then those are abuses, they are incorrect, and they should be stopped. IAR does not tell us to violate policies, it tells us to very, very mindful, considerate and careful.

IAR abuse certainly does happen. A very good defense, if someone abuses IAR, is (either to come here and get one of us, or) to point the editor in question to WP:WIARM, where we read,:

• ""Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule."
• ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable."
• ""Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability."

Those lines enjoy broad consensus support, and you may use them. I am very happy to answer specific questions, or to look at a specific situation. Part of the same mentality that IAR requires is that specific cases are worth much, much more than generalities. Everything is considered on a case-by-case basis, including "applications" of IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All good points, however WP:WIARM isn't official policy and WP:IAR is. It's an essay, so it's easily dismissed. :( Flipper9 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone dismisses any consensus on that basis, he/she misunderstands how Wikipedia works (or is pretending to). This can be remedied via simple communication.

Perhaps we should consider labeling WP:WIARM a guideline or policy, but I'd hate to reinforce the misconception that such a tag is a sacrosanct seal that enables behavior. —David Levy 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say you may feel very free to correct anyone who says "it's only an essay" or "it's only a guideline" about anything. Statements such as that have a place in a formal rules environment, but not here. The question is never, "Is it a policy, guideline or essay?" The question is, "Is it a good idea?" Those trying to play Wikipedia as a rules-game should be corrected; you're welcome to help do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"IAR is a policy, always has been"--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So.. if this is a policy then we shouldn't be blocking people, right? I mean, those we call "vandals" are just being creative and improving Wikipedia in their own way. Evil saltine (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

They're welcome to vandalize. They'll still be blocked because that's the consensus way of improving Wikipedia. The policy doesn't say that whatever you do will be approved or tolerated. If you're sitting on your talk page, blocked, saying, "but they said IAR!", then you'll find out how well that works! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So some rules shouldn't be ignored, then. Evil saltine (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not so much the rules that shouldn't be ignored, as the fact that others may have different views from you (I mean the vandal of course, not you) as to what constitutes "improving" Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, but by different views you mean consensus, right? Evil saltine (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any rules "shouldn't" be ignored. I'd say that ignoring the wrong rules at the wrong time will backfire badly, but if that's what you want, knock yourself out. Nobody said that ignore all rules would somehow make everyone lose their brains and accept anything anyone says.

Ignoring consensus is sometimes a good idea. A case where that is true is likely to be an unusual exception, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were attended by some brouhaha. That doesn't make it wrong.

Ignoring rules mindfully, and acting correspondingly mindfully is a very good idea. Ignoring rules without also applying common sense, both regarding the product we're making and regarding the community in which we're working... will almost certainly lead to grief. It isn't a matter of precisely which rule you ignore when. It's a matter of how clueless you are about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Policies v. Guidelines

Regarding policies and guidelines, I would agree that from an IAR perspective there is very little difference. I tend to think of policies as more fundamental, defining what we're doing here in the first place. Guidelines are more like useful rubrics to help us along the way. That's not the official explanation, I know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You people think about IAR too hard... It should be pretty simple: "If a rule keeps you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." Not, "But if that means breaking a guideline or any of <random policies here>, then don't, and if it is reining outside on a tuesday afternoon, use of IAR is strictly prohibited, unless you are using IAR as a rationale for ignoring the previously established rule..." no.--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Who's making that kind of noise? I don't see us trying to make IAR into a rule with specific types of application here. Quite the contrary, we're claiming that because of IAR, the example you just typed is an exercise in WikiLawyering absurdity. Technical rule arguments do not work here; don't make them. That's the point.

I'm not sure who you're saying is "thinking too hard". I'm just answering questions I know the answers to, so it's not too arduous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically policies trump guidelines, for those that wish to think that way. For others, they are the same. Again, for others they are irrelevant. People can choose to apply policies/guidelines, or not. It just depends on who is editing the article at any one time. So in essence, they are worthless if an edit conflict arises...as mob rule (aka consensus) is the only "true rule" outside of administrator or home office action. Flipper9 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you've taken away from this discussion, there has been a regrettable failure in the communicate process. —David Levy 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, take for example the editing of an article by the concerned author. They want to follow community consensus, so they read the policies and guidelines that have been hammered-out by the community and then use their best judgment to develop and improve an article. Along come 4 other editors to the same article. They all have varying opinions on how the article should be edited. Some of the 5 editors like to follow the policies, some disagree with the policies, and some don't like policies at all. In this case, an edit war ensues (administrators may become involved, WP:3RR tactics might be used, or other ways of getting people blocked). Basically, the majority of the editors (the mob) will prevail in this case. Hopefully the article will be edited to conform to the spirit (if not the letter) of the community-developed policies. But, they may not. It all depends on the editors involved. (key point) They may represent community-wide consensus, or not. It all depends on who is editing the article at the time. My thought is that policies and guidelines reflect community-wide consensus (since the entirety of Wikipedia isn't involved or knows about any one specific article), and should serve to "temper" the consensus going on in any particular article. Flipper9 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if your experience of Wikipedia looks like what you just described. Maybe it's that I'm an eventualist, but I think that, in the majority of cases, a "mob" working contrary to community norms is found out. A few editors may be able to bring an article out of line with the community norms, but I think it's pretty easy for a concerned editor to expose this by using existing community structures.

What you say about the P&G's representing a broader consensus than any one article is certainly true. That is why it takes more than a small group of editors on one article to overturn a broad-based consensus. If they manage to do it for a little while, then that particular article needs fixing. Such situations should be addressed when they are discovered. How to address them is a very worthwhile question to ask, but I'm not sure this is the venue for it.

A situation such as you described can be made much easier or much more difficult depending on the dispute resolution tactics employed by the various parties. If people are goading each other into violating 3RR, then everyone is several steps across the line already. Since no number of wrongs add up to make a right, I can't see any excuse for it. The appropriate response to edit-warring isn't to edit-war back, counting reverts. The appropriate response is to seek broader community input, doing precisely what you say: tempering the consensus going on in that particular article. None of this has all that much to do with IAR, that I can see. IAR abuse is just another shady way to try and undermine consensus; nobody needs to stand for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the only reason I bring it up here is that WP:IAR is at the heart of the core Wikipedia policies, and that any attempt to encourage editors to try and utilize Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines results in the invocation of WP:IAR in contentious articles. But I understand and agree with your points. Flipper9 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of abuse of the policy. On one hand, it tempting to call WIARM a "guideline" for people who don't get the point, but on the other hand, doing so would pretty much capitulate that point and acknowledge that the status means a lot more than we want it to. Eventually, most of the learning has to happen out there in the wiki working on articles, and not down here in the relative peace and calm of the engine room. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we get this sort of discussion all the time, and the only conclusion ever seems to be that everyone has their own philosophy, often regarding all alternative philosophies and even empirical observations as "misunderstandings" of the way "Wikipedia works", I conclude that the way we currently document all this is not leading to great understanding of anything. It can't be that difficult, surely - given that the aim is to write an encyclopedia, not create a rule-based structure, the role of "rules" ought to be something we can define fairly concretely so we can move on to important things.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "the only conclusion ever seems to be that everyone has their own philosophy". I've been under the impression that we're pretty consistent about how we interpret it, but that we perennially have people come through to ask "isn't this a contradiction or paradox?" Each time, they're told, "no, and here's why." I think we're documenting it reasonably well; the reason that it keeps coming up is that it's unusual, and not everyone is used to it. The role of rules here is not really like anywhere else, at least not like anywhere I've worked before. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Valid application of IAR?

(Dlabtot Undid revision 287193344 by Dlabtot (talk) per WP:IAR) What think you? Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rule against reverting yourself, or a rule that requires you to remove unreliable sources. Which rule were you ignoring? Chillum 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing IAR in a reason for doing something almost certainly means that it was a bad idea to do it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee I have to disagree with Deskana's comment, as I see no basis for it. Citing IAR is important because not everyone knows that you are allowed to do that. Though one should also explain which rule and why it is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Now if IAR is your only argument that is a problem, but I don't see that here(mostly because I don't see any argument). Chillum 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The theory is that rules can sometimes get in way, especially of things like common sense. Often, if the best reason you can come up with for doing something is "per IAR" then you've not actually got a good reason for doing it, because otherwise you would have just stated that reason. For example, many of my deletions do not fit strictly into either CSD or whatever other deletion rules there are, but I feel no need to cite IAR as a defense, because it's clear what I'm doing is to improve the encyclopedia. I've seen a lot of people try to cite IAR as a defense and end up with a bit of a catastrophic failure. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with the idea "If your only reason is IAR, then you probably don't get IAR", which is a bit different than "Citing IAR in a reason for doing something almost certainly means that it was a bad idea to do it". I agree that when citing IAR you should be able to explain how and why it applies. Notice I said "be able", I don't think you need to explain it up front in an edit summary, if nobody asks about it then you probably did it correctly, but if they do ask you need to be able to explain. Chillum 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We should try to get away from people thinking that IAR is something you "cite" or "apply". It's mean to be a general principle behind every single thing you do here, not something you use in certain cases. In cases which may be questionable, it just means that when asked you should explain why you did the right thing, rather than explaining some certain word on a certain policy page means a certain thing. It's just meant to encourage actual rational, relevant discussion rather than silly ruleslawyering. Friday (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, this conversation is interesting, kinda, but what I'm asking is which is better, to have the short stubby article based on one reliable source, or the longer more detailed article based in part on his unpublished diaries. First I reverted way back to the RS-only version but when I saw what that meant in terms of informing the reader, I reverted myself and came here. I do think the longer article is better but our rules are clear that citations must be verifiable to reliable published sources, hence IAR. I'm not in a dispute about this with any other editor and I'm not emotionally invested in it one way or the other. Dlabtot (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Our rules say that claims must be verifiable, not verified. Nearly all Wikipedia articles contain statements that are not explicitly supported by citations. If someone in good faith challenged such statements, then it would be up to anyone who wanted to keep them to find reliable sources for them. But there's no rule against putting uncited statements in, nor any rule that says you must (or even necessarily can) remove them on sight. So at first sight, I don't think you've broken any rule, and therefore have no need to invoke IAR.--Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said, except that policy does say you can remove uncited claims in sight. It is not required though. Chillum 01:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, can you ref that? My response would have been exactly Kotniskis's (but that RL thing intervened) so I would be happy to have some enlightenment. My understanding has always been "controversial or likely to be challenged" needs a cite. Nothing I saw in Dlabtot's example raised any hairs. There were no controversial claims, the person is dead - to me, that resolves to waiting for someone to come along and challenge it. What am I missing in policy? Franamax (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."..."Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"..."It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". It is a reoccurring theme in the policy and very much in line with its spirit. You can remove such material, though your are not required to and it is not always the correct answer. Chillum 06:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, my understanding is not so different after all. I interpret that as requiring some judgement i.e. if the claims are not wild, and it's not a living person, I'll tend to respect the previous author. In the current case, I have no particular reason to think that someone invented diary quotations. Strict reading of the rule though indicates they should be removed. Franamax (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Sorry I posted here. BTW, citations to unpublished diaries are clearly NOT verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. So maybe this longer article does break the rules, and if so, then I probably agree with you that it's a good case for IAR. (But if a dispute broke out over it, we'd likely be in the minority...)--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that the person could walk into a library, drop the diaries on the front desk and say "please archive these" - and all would be fine. But the contents of the diary don't change in the process, you just walk to a different building to read them. Franamax (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Published" does not make something more reliable, it does make it more accessible. The reliability would be an issue of who wrote it, and if it can be verified that person wrote it. Chillum 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Title

Contributions/91.110.158.116 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)I think they should change the title to Ignore a rule if it stops you from improving Wikipedia.

Except that's not proper grammar...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Policy cat discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies#Quick thought. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, didn't get support for putting IAR in the enforcement policy cat, how about the conduct policy cat? Again, please see WT:LOP#Quick thought. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations for creating a thread that was not controversial on this page. Chillum 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision

I'm going to bring this up again, because the situation just turned up again. IAR could not be used in suppressing the news about the kidnapped New York Times reporter, because it's only supposed to be used for maintaining or improving Wikipedia. Protecting people is not "maintaining or improving Wikipedia", so you are not permitted to ignore rules for that purpose.

Suggested change:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia or otherwise doing what's right, ignore it.

or even:

If a rule prevents you from doing what's right, ignore it.

IAR as it stands is just too narrow. We should be permitted to ignore rules in order to protect people. The usual place this turns up is when dealing with privacy and BLP problems. You can't ignore a rule to protect someone's privacy, because that isn't "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". The definition should be expanded to include such cases.

I'm by no means tied to this wording and would appreciate if anyone knows of a better way to say it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what IAR is for. You want it to "be used" for a purpose outside its logical scope.

IAR works because it's understood that we should deviate from rules when following them to the letter would generate unintended results or otherwise interfere with our mission. It also is understood that ignoring rules in a manner inconsistent with consensus usually leads to disruption, which doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia.

The scenario to which you refer is quite different; instead of ignoring the letter of a rule to honor its spirit and/or to honor consensus, we occasionally must set aside all of that (including consensus) for the greater good. Given the fact that we cannot rely on consensus where none exists (and we certainly can't wait for it to develop in an emergency situation), there's no point in rewording a consensus-dependent policy to accommodate such an occurrence. This is where office actions typically are necessary, and the line should not be blurred.

Your proposed wording (or anything similar) would advise editors to ignore consensus whenever they disagree with it (in the interest of doing what they believe to be "right"). —David Levy 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that you've been involved in the Wikipedia:News suppression discussion. If that specific proposal garners consensus, there would be no need to ignore the rules in such a circumstance. If it doesn't garner consensus, we're right back to the problem that I described above (the infeasibility of relying on a consensus-dependent policy). —David Levy 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense than many of the responses I get to this idea. I'm not convinced, though. Among people who knew what was going on, this incident had consensus. And the more common, weaker versions (applying IAR to protect someone's privacy) pretty much happen with consensus. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the practice, a new rule (either Wikipedia:News suppression or a different one) can be created, thereby eliminating the need to ignore the rules. If there is not consensus for the practice, this policy is not an appropriate or effective tool for circumventing dissent (which is not to say that contrary decisions cannot be made at the Foundation level). —David Levy 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But protection is a form of maintenance. Chillum 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether the type of scenario that Ken describes falls under "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" is debatable, but this proposal is predicated on the assumption that it doesn't. —David Levy 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone suggests that improving Wikipedia is at odds with doing what's right, then I would question their use of the word "improve". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that improving Wikipedia isn't regarded as right; it's that other things regarded as right don't necessarily improve Wikipedia (at least, not directly). —David Levy 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see that. I don't see it as a reason to change the page, because I agree with your argument above, and because it's about the spirit, not the letter. The spirit is: "Don't worry about what the rules say. Be alert!" That applies whether or not it falls within the lines drawn on the ground with crayons by one of us when we were bored. It applies to life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the letter of the rule is good if you're using IAR in a dispute with someone. That probably won't happen much with news suppression, but it does happen with privacy concerns, where rule wonks say that we must keep some information because (quoting the five pillars) "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and that therefore we may not remove information for any reason external to improving the encyclopedia. It's impossible to quote IAR back at them, because the wording of IAR supports their argument. Ken Arromdee (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found that, in practice, people don't try to hold IAR as a letter-of-the-law kind of rule. If someone tries to do that, they're wrong and we can inform them that the whole point of IAR is that we don't care about the letters of laws. Seriously, we will back you up on this. If someone tries to "lawyer" IAR, just don't let them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the current wording. Our project goal is to improve and maintain an encyclopedia, not to do the "right thing^TM". Chillum 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also something about leaving the wording alone. I mean, the idea that we can alter reality by changing the words on this page is part of the view that IAR is supposed to discourage. That's a tricky idea to combat, because as more and more people believe it, it becomes true.

Darned word-magic. If you want something to be true, then go out and be it. Don't just write it down somewhere and imagine everyone will fall in line. Let the historians who come after you write it down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a bootstrapping problem here. Using a computer analogy, if you need a program to uncompress zip files, that program should not come in zipped format. The instructions for installing your web browser should not be only available over the web.

A rule which tells you not to follow exact words shouldn't require that you already know about not following exact words in order to properly interpret the rule itself. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WIARM? Wikipedia is, per IAR, not a computer program. Assuming that it works like one does lead to contradictions; this is ok. Somehow a lot of people get it, and like I said, we'll back you up on this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words: if we were robots, this would break our robot brains. We're not, so it's ok. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, the reason that this is important is that it should be possible to quote the rule to rule wonks.

In order to do that, the rule had better be properly worded. If it's not, it's no good--the only people who will listen when you quote it are the people you don't need to quote it to in the first place.

WP:WIARM, unfortunately, says that it's not a policy or guideline,so rule wonks are free to ignore it. Besides, it has the same problems as IAR itself--it constantly makes references to improving the encyclopedia. It's very easy to read it and come away with the impression that rules may not be ignored for reasons other than improving the encyclopedia. (Would you support me on the WIARM discussion page if I tried to tone it down to make clear that that's not the case?)Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both."

"A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged."

"Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated."

"Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit. "

"Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia.

Phrases similar to "to improve the encyclopedia" are used so many times and stressed so much that it's no wonder people think that IAR can't be used if you're not improving the encyclopedia. Ken Arromdee (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"[The] reason that this is important is that it should be possible to quote the rule to rule wonks." I disagree. Rule wonks don't need to be encouraged by quoting rules to them. They need to be broken of rule-wonkery, by any means necessary. They need to be shown that rules here are not subject to wonkery. Don't humor them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while software design may fall into difficulties with the concept of "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", I don't think that it is a concept humans need any special knowledge to understand. Chillum 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not accept the proposition that taking cognizance of its impact on the real world has nothing to do with maintaining or improving Wikipedia. It is a false premise: Wikipedia is an artifact and an enterprise in the real world. Were Wikipedia entirely heedless of its real world impact it would be destroyed by forces of that real world in which it exists. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

'Phrases similar to "to improve the encyclopedia" are used so many times and stressed so much that it's no wonder people think that IAR can't be used if you're not improving the encyclopedia.' Gosh, you're right. How ridiculous, to think that improving the encyclopedia would involve improving the encyclopedia! Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 04:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Exception

Unless the name of the rule is civility (?) ... ... said: Rursus (mb_ork³) 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, in which it's explained that the policy "does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule." —David Levy 18:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonetheless, there is always an exception to every rule. Noloop (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean that there's an exception to the rule that there's an exception to every rule? —David Levy 17:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's a fact. Noloop (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} —David Levy 22:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that a fact or a rule? Noloop (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure. If it's a fact, it requires a citation of its own. If it's a rule, it must have an exception...but we still need a citation for that. —David Levy 23:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Umm I don't see how being civil would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. If you find yourself thinking that you must ignore civility to improve or maintain Wikipedia then think harder! Chillum 23:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Examples of IAR

Has anyone ever seen a situation where rules were actually ignored? I haven't. Maybe there should be a list of a few examples on the page where WP:IAR has been used. 174.18.2.207 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than the times I've ignored the rules and done what I thought was right? Yes, I've seen those too. When IAR happens, it either works well and the encyclopedia gets improved, or it gets slapped down very quickly.

My impression of the general feeling is that we don't wish to use specific examples here on the policy page. There is too much risk of "policy by analogy", i.e. people will read the examples and interpret them as "rules" which they can then follow as guidance on how to successfully ignore rules. Can you see the paradox there? We do have subsidiary essays where these conundrums can be explored more fully. Franamax (talk) 06:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I ignore the rules about giving a user a full set of warnings when I think it is obvious that the user already knows not to replace an article with the word "poop" printed out 2000 times. Generally I just don't let process hang me up when I am attempting to improve or maintain Wikipedia. Chillum 23:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I "apply" IAR constantly. I haven't read our policies, and have no intention of doing so. That's an application of IAR. The other day, I speedy-deleted an article that didn't fit any of the CSD. Boom; IAR. It happens constantly. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

GT, while new users are not expected to know the policies, it is a good idea for established users to know what they are ignoring. It is arguably not required but I think is a "good idea". Chillum 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

So... are you saying I should read our policies? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am saying it is a good idea. How can you tell if a rule is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia if you don't know what the rule is? Not really my place to tell you what to do though, as long as your contributions are fine, then I don't really care. Chillum 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It's easy. I just improve the encyclopedia, and don't worry whether a rule says to do so or not to do so. I mean, what am I going to learn by reading WP:CIVIL, for example? That being civil is a good idea? I knew that before I got an account. What am I going to learn by reading WP:NPOV? What it means to be neutral? I already know that, because I know what the word "neutral" means.

I'd like to know what I'm missing, except I don't think I'm missing anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Chillum 23:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Essays

Essays are expressions of opinion. Some are better than others. I've removed links to essays from the "See also" section of this policy, and retained a link to What Wikipedia Is Not, which is a related policy. --TS 01:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. As time passes this policy seems to gather more and more hitchhikers. Chillum 02:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with doing this as well, but I did just re-add the link to WP:IAR?, since it's obviously directly related.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I can live with that as long as we don't end up with a slide back to having three or four essays linked. --TS 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means is the one essay that should be linked. —David Levy 01:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

By the way, some of you might be interested in WP:PROJPOL
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Understanding IAR

Much of the recent discussion regarding these essays shows there is very little support for the link staying and more than a little support for it being removed. Granted that the discussion has mostly grouped the links together and this particular link has not been discussed in isolation, however as it stands the link to the essay does seem not enjoy consensus.

I welcome productive debate regarding the value of including the essay, but perhaps it should not be reinserted(again) until people have agreed. Please consider reversing your restoration of this link until such consensus is gained. It is in this spirit that I am starting this discussion to better view the consensus. I will start by giving my two cents and I encourage others to do the same, when we are done we can all abide by what the community wants. Chillum 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I oppose the link to this essay because it is a collection of opinions that are not supported by the wording of this policy. IAR means that you can ignore a rule if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, that is policy. The rest is opinion. Chillum 04:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Well right off the bat (and using UIAR as shorthand for WP:UIAR in case there is any confusion), I would favour dropping the "A poem" section from that essay. It was all wonderful when it happened, but I believe it devalues the overall message. Put that bit aside though, and here is what I see:

• The preamble (the "lede") refers to the earliest genesis of the IAR rule, and thus sets its historical context and fundamental and continuing role. I'm not aware of any factual or historical inaccuracies there.
• The essence of ignorance section is just beautiful. If any words were to be added to the IAR policy itself, those are the most simple ones that approach the truth.
• Why have any rules, then? section addresses what to me (thinking back to before I became a policy wonk) was very important when first approaching this site. Namely, what is this shit all about and do I have a place here? It was truly a revelation that I could fit in without having to understand and agree to chapter and verse.
• Successfully ignoring rules section, to me really does describe the right way to go, especially for a naive but potentially productive editor such as myself right at the start. It describes exactly the "right" way to go about doing things.

So no, I don't see any drawbacks to linking UIAR here. Possibly it is a collection of opinions, but really that describes the entirety of Wikipedia policy. ;) The value of UIAR (and the value of it remaining as a linked essay, not policy) is that it gives an informal explanation of what the whole deal is all about. It doesn't draw conclusions, it offers no prescriptions, it simply explains from first principles. I'm not clear as to what the specific objections are to its inclusion as a linked essay here. When you come down to it, nothing at all is supported by the wording of this policy. UIAR only attempts to provide enlightenment. Nothing at all within UIAR contradicts IAR - thus I think it a valuable complement. However, opinions may differ. :) Franamax (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Also Chillum, when you say "much of the recent discussion", could you be more specific? I'm able to locate the #Essays section not far above. Is there anything more? Franamax (talk) 06:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The #Essays section is the recent discussion I am referring to, it is not a lot of discussion but it is a start.

My issue is that the essay does indeed draw conclusions not in this policy, it says If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way... That is not what the policy says, it says If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. The policy is not about absolute freedom to disregard the rules when you have a better way, it is about freedom to disregard the rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. It goes on to say The problem is that views can vary widely as to just what constitutes a "better way of doing things", well the real policy does not have that problem because it is not trying to allow people to ignore the rules to make things "better". "Better" is completely subjective while "improving or maintaining the encyclopedia" is very specific. Better is not part of what IAR is about, it is about "improving and maintaining the encyclopedia".

Yes, are policies are a collection of opinions, but these opinions enjoy consensus. This essay contains opinions that are not policy, yet by the very name of the essay suggests that it is an expansion on the policy. Linking to it from the policy page indicates this "understanding" is accepted and relevant to the policy. To be frank I think UIAR has created significant original content that is not contained in this policy and is more likely to cause misunderstandings regarding IAR. It is a new version of IAR that goes beyond the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" scope and thus misrepresents this policy. Chillum 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you're reading things into it that aren't there. When people read "do it the better way..." I'm sure they'll read it as meaning better for Wikipedia. It's only an essay, so no-one's going to be able to wikilawyer with this wording. I see the essay as friendly and informative, and certainly of potential use to someone arriving at this page and wondering what to make of it.--Kotniski (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The only ones who are worrying about the wording of an essay are going to be those who are 1- wikilawyers, because anything written on wikipedia comes back to haunt them because they love to be able to quote things for their side and dont want anythign out there that can be used against them. 2- the strict constructionists (who tend to be wikilawyers mostly anyways) who dont want things like IAR around for people to use and ignore the very "rules" that the strict constr. want enforced by the letter. We are a living, evolving, and growing society and our policies need to be ignored and new ways to do things need to be allowed so better ways can be found and used and policies and guidelines changed. Our policies are written in stone and they can, and often are, changed quite frequently. If a policy is normally used it will slowly die and be re-written, it evolves or it dies. I know some dont believe in evolution...but oh well, the earth is round too and revolves around the sun too in case you didnt know.Camelbinky (talk) 01:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Aww! I just bought a whole new book on epicycles and epitrochoids. Just say no to heliocentrism! ;) Franamax (talk) 02:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

 :-PCamelbinky (talk) 21:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly don't think it is wikilawyering to think that this essay states far more than what is actual policy and that this misrepresents the policy, I am certainly willing to accept the link if there is no consensus to remove it. Camel if you look at my history on this very talk page you will see that I have nothing against IAR, on the contrary I am a strong supporter of both its wording and spirit. If you look at my history on Wikipedia in its entirety you will see I am for from a "constructionist".

I think it is an unfair debating tactic to state that anyone who disagrees with the wording of the essay is a strict rules lawyer, the fact is that the essay's ideas go well beyond what the policy actually states. Many people have attempted to expand IAR beyond what it currently says and have failed to get consensus, these very same ideas that did not get consensus have found their way into an essay that claims to describe what this policy is. I think that this leads to misunderstanding about what IAR really is(the permission to ignore rules that prevent your from improving or maintaining Wikipedia). Chillum 00:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, go back and read Kotniski's comment above. I really think that those people determined to read more into IAR than what is there (i.e. "IAR told me to put the word poopoo into the article, also it was Elvis who blew up WTC 7") will derive their own justification from just the twelve words. I don't see UIAR as providing any extra cover for such actions, they'll be doing it anyway. IAR is the hardest policy to understand, but it's also the simplest. It's a state of mind. All we can do is lead editors to think about the concept and draw their own conclusions. UIAR is an essay written for the purpose of expanding on the ways of thinking about this - but it doesn't counsel any particular action. Those words can be misread in any arbitrary way to support someone's actions, but so can the original (or current) twelve. The point is that it is a friendly attempt at explanation. Franamax (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, it is an essay, which at least on most templates that explain an essay at the top of the essay's page states very clearly that an essay may be the MINORITY opinion on Wikipedia. For some reason not all essays say this, and I'm at a loss right now at remembering if this one does say that or not. If it doesnt perhaps adding that to this article would relieve you of some of your worries about what this essay does or does not promote?Camelbinky (talk) 02:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Chillum 03:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed both essays. In general we shouldn't include personal opinion pieces on policy pages. --TS 22:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you'd already agreed to leave the link to Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. And I'm rather surprised to see you exhibiting a "policy/guideline = good, essay = bad" (scare quotes) attitude, as I know you to usually take a far more pragmatic approach (regardless of whether I happen to agree). —David Levy 22:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I wasnt looking but, um...where did we come to the consensus that those essays should be removed? Why are things being removed without there being a consensus to that fact in the first place? Seems wrong to me.Camelbinky (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I also find Tony's action perplexing. The above discussion resulted in the proponent of removing the link to Wikipedia:Understanding IAR conceding the argument, and Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means wasn't discussed at all. (When last it was, we agreed to keep it, and that includes Tony.) —David Levy 22:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP v IAR

I don't believe there are any rules - even BLP - that come above IAR. Various things get written on the BLP page - many of them may be ignorable. There may be a principle - that we don't libel people - which we never ignore, but that's because it's never an improvement to the encyclopedia to put libel into it. --Kotniski (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur whole-heartedly with that, and its similar to the discussion above about UIAR.Camelbinky (talk) 20:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is generally true, but we need to be cognizant of how the imprecation to IAR might lead to discoverers of the new truth about OMG! MJ's love-child! feeling compelled to IAR that new discovery into the article. The pillars all work together. Franamax (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, that's a BDP example, but whatever... Franamax (talk) 08:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The requirement that negative information about living people be cited to a reliable source should not prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. IAR is not really above things, it is the goal of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia that is above things. Chillum 14:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to say I totally agree with Chillum that the goal of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is above all things. Feels good to be on the side of good.Camelbinky (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedia + love child allegation > wikipedia; and you can IAR to do this. IAR says it is above all those tedious rules like WP:VER and WP:BLP.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with IAR is that it has no moral content; it does not specify what 'better' is. And if you already know what 'improved' encyclopedia means, then you don't need the other tedious rules, just IAR everything, in fact IAR and remove all the other policies.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 06:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Funny

I like how the nutshell says "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". So that means that we should normally ignore all rules? Somehow, I don't think that's the intent. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course we could always ignore the ignore all rules policy. ;) -- œ^™ 23:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait...if I were to ignore the ignore all rules policy, I would be following the rule. But if I were to follow this rule I would no longer be ignoring all rules! ?!? Attinio (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if you only read the title it may seem contrary, but if you read the whole thing there is no contradiction. How can a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia? Chillum 14:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors should normally ignore all rules, absolutely. That is the intent. Each decision should be made based on value added to the encyclopedia, and not on harmonizing with written rules. If you don't even worry about what the rules say, except insofar as they're records of previous agreements, and if you're sufficiently respectful and careful with previous agreements, then you're editing right. I discourage policy-reading. It causes cancer. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

GTBacchus, you are now my bestest friend. Thank you for saying that! I hate "rules"-quoters who go around and say things like "please state what policy says that" and refuse to accept your opinion unless your opinion is backed verbatim by a policy. Too many strict constructionists here in Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 03:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand how anyone can read this as saying that we should "normally ignore all rules", yet at least two have done so above. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

You should not ignore rules willy nilly, only when they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. That is all this policy states. It seems some only read the title of this policy and not the actual contents. Chillum 16:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we do normally ignore all rules. in the sense that I don't think I feel the need to check up in a rulebook before making this comment. Ignore all rules applies in that sense, and also in the sense where we do knowingly ignore a rule that stands in the way of improving Wikipedia. --TS 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose if not having time to know the rules prevents your from improving and maintaining Wikipedia then you don't have to read them. I have never had that problem myself. The rules should only be ignored if they prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, any other reason goes beyond the scope of this policy. Chillum 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No. You shouldn't need to read a rule book to edit Wikipedia, even if you have time to do so. The idea is that anybody can edit, and that makes rule books anathema. A clue: this was the first rule on Wikipedia. Its intent cannot reasonably read as "if the rule book is too big and you're unaware of a specific rule, it's okay if you accidentally ignored it."

The meaning of this policy can be expressed pretty succinctly: Ignore all rules. --TS 00:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I take offense at the fact that the title is "ignore all rules", as if these are rules in the first place. Wikipedia does not have a rulebook or any rules at all. These are policies and guidelines. There is a difference. They are accepted norms that have come about through consensus and they are here to guide us with their wisdom concerning previous agreements on similar subjects. They are not in any sense ever to be considered strict rules handed down from on high by the Wikigods. If a policy or guideline suggests something should be done, or not done, in a certain way, and it doesnt seem to apply in a certain specific instance then go ahead and ignore it without any worry that some rules-quoter will throw it in your face (but of course they will, and then they will say "ignore all rules" is crap and will ask you to quote a "rule" that says you can do what you want or else they will revert whatever you do). That paragraph I wrote is what "Ignore all rules" should say to make it clearer what we are talking about and shut up the rule-quoters.Camelbinky (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There are in fact rules Camel. There is the requirement of open licensing of our text, and writing from a neutral point of view for instance(both strict rules handed down from on high by the Wikigods), we also have community crafted rules like No personal attacks and Edit warring. Wikipedia is not an experiment in freedom. We do have rules and their purpose is to facilitate our goal of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. We allow people to ignore them only for the same goal, improving and maintaining the encyclopedia. You can call a rule whatever you want, but people get blocked for violating them so saying they are not rules is really just wishful thinking. This policy is about having the good sense not to let the rules prevent their own intended purpose(improving and maintaining the encyclopedia), it is not a philosophy of absolute freedom. Once again, one has to read the contents of the page and not just the title. Chillum 01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A few times I and perhaps others have suggested that Ignore all rules is more in the nature of a koan, and the best thing we could do to present its nature was to make a blank page. Once I even tried that, and perhaps others have also done that, too.

And sometimes I wonder if perhaps, Ignore all rules is just the Trout Fishing in America of Wikipedia. --Ignore all rules 01:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

How can it be a koan when it is rational? Don't koans need aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding? I know some have claimed it has some level of paradox but I disagree. I have not yet had an answer to my question "How can a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia?" Until this can be answered I see no paradox. Chillum 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a rule that tells you to ignore rules. I am no lover of Zen but I appreciate the humor. --TS 01:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no that is the conclusion you come to if you only read the title. If you read the content you will see it is a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. If the rule really was "Ignore all rules" then I would agree there is a paradox, but that is not what the rule is, that is only the title. Chillum 01:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still stuck on the rational understanding of why TS unlinked the related essay WP:UIAR a few weeks ago. I missed it then and now attempts to relink it seem to be met with "per agreement on the talk page". WTF? I always thought it was just as relevant as WIARM. Franamax (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

By WP:UIAR you refer to an essay called Wikipedia:Understanding Ignore all rules. In my recent edit I removed most of the opinionated stuff, but retained the only reference to established policy--and one which I consider to be related to this one: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not|] (WP:NOT).

The reason for removing the essays should be obvious: they are essays. This is the policy. Policy should not normally refer to personal opinion. It is policy. --TS 02:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of policies have supporting essays in the links.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony, you're right and I'm wrong. What actually happened was that you removed 'em all and one got put back (and you acceded). My previous experience with the relatively stable consensus was that WIARM and UIAR were the acceptable essays related to this policy. We've been through the wringer here with editors wanting to expand the policy wording itself and many of us have adamantly maintained that the canonical 12 words are the policy and must stand on their own. However, we've also had those two explanatory essays to point to for people wishing further explanations which don't actually offer examples of how IAR works. They both just offer better ways of thinking about the subject. I lean more toward the koan side of things, but I've always felt that both should be linked, since they offer valuable perspective to help people actually think about what those twelve words mean. Franamax (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Refactor and part undent to the thread fork where I think and hope this belongs. Franamax (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Franamax, yes, if by these cryptic sets of letters "WIARM and UIAR" you mean What "Ignore all rules" means and Understanding Ignore all rules. To which I will add the one inexorable rule of this policy: "Ignore all rules will become fat and then somebody will have to ignore all rules and trim it down." This has happened many times during the lifetime of the policy. --TS 03:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Tony if you're confused by the shortforms commonly used by the participants here in discussing the page content. For unfamiliar editors, of course I would wikilink the relevant essay/policy/pillar/guideline. I just assumed you had a clue about discussions here over the last year or two. I'll be more careful in future.

I do agree with you that any page can get a little bulgy around the link-belly as time goes on. I prefer constant vigilance but I see the value in drastic weight-loss too. However, I'm going to restore the UIAR link now. This indenting is interfering with Camelbinky's comments, so I don't know how it will end up once I (try to) save my edit. Franamax (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between obeying the laws of the country that Wikipedia is in (and yes Wikipedia is in the United States, incorporated in Delaware, servers are I believe in Florida) and "rules" which can be ignored. How about you read your precious "rules" and realize Wikipedia does not have rules. As in this snippet-

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not governed by statute: it is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice, but rather document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed.

While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus.

A procedural error made in posting anything, such as a proposal or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post.

So tell me how that supports your idea, Chillum, that Wikipedia is full of rules and has a rulebook? You are a strict constructionist and that type of viewpoint regarding Wikipedia's guidelines and policies is not an accepted view by this community. Take your ideology to a different arena, such as politics, it is not wanted here.Camelbinky (talk) 03:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality is not a law. People are allowed to be as biased as they want. But neutrality is not optional here because it is part of our goal. If we came to a consensus to not be neutral, we still have to be neutral. WP:NOT is overridden by foundation policy, not a popular fact, but a fact none the less. Thankfully the foundation only wants us to make a good encyclopedia.

Just because a rule is not blindly enforced without regard to common sense does not mean it is not a rule. The wording WP:NOT does not indicate that we have no rules, but rather that the rules are there for a purpose and that the purpose is more important than the rules. Chillum 04:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Camel, you are welcome and wanted here even though you disagree with me, perhaps you could extend the same courtesy to me? Chillum 14:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont care if I'm wanted or welcomed here or not, that doesnt matter to me nor is it your decision to make me welcome or not welcomed, even though by putting "even though you disagree with me" as if you are extending me some sort of courtesy by allowing me to stay even though I disagree with you. I'm here and will continue to be whether you like it or not. I simply told you to take your political views to a more appropriate forum, your political conservative leanings that lend to a strict constructionist view on our policies' and guidelines (THEY ARE NOT RULES) are not proper for Wikipedia. The foundation does not get involved with our policies and guidelines, despite your implying that they have a policy that intrudes on us. Consensus does rule and overide everything else.Camelbinky (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Camel, I think you may be missing a few points here. Chillum is not attempting to grant or withhold your leave to edit, he's simply asking that you treat him in a calm and collegial fashion. The foundation certainly does get involved, they own the private property on which we are all guests. We have WP:BLP, WP:OFFICE, a full-time lawyer. Yes, the foundation stays out of the way as much as possible, but if consensus shifted to the view that we should he hosting porn videos and gossip pages, that wouldn't stop the WMF board chairman from walking down to the server room and switching everything to the "off" position. Wikipedia is indeed full of all sorts of rules, there's even a rule for how to put in a dash character. That's the whole point of this policy, to make sure that people don't get scared off by that immense catalogue of rules and instead feel confident to just go edit. But at some point, the rules do indeed come into play - that's how we get content into articles (be WP:BOLD and put it in) and how we get to more perfect content (someone else reformats it). And finally, based on my experience of Chillum's participation here, they aren't pitching any "political conservative leanings", where are you getting that from? Chillum has always been a defender and explicator of this policy (as I've tried to be also). Reasonable people are allowed to have reasonable disagreements. Franamax (talk) 02:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe there may have been too much read into the fact that I must have missed some ' marks that ended up making alot more bold and italicized than I intended thereby making the post seem "angry". For that I apologize. If it is that much of a problem, I can go and change it, but I prefer not to go back and change grammar, spelling, or markup mistakes in my posts after-the-fact, but will if annoys some. I wish this discussion could have stayed on topic about realistic consensus changes and realistic opportunities about ignoring the "rules" instead of, as happens everytime here or on the village pump, editors bringing in ridiculous examples of copyrights, legal rules, the Foundation, etc etc that really editors arent going to use ignore all rules on. If we had agreed to keep this to the real world realm of possibilities and what IAR was intended to cover perhaps this discussion could have continued. Let me know when this discussion will only cover IAR and not red herrings that are thrown to distract and confuse.Camelbinky (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not worry about refactoring your postings, I don't mind a bit of passion in a debate as long as one is also listening. While I did not appreciate the comment "Take your ideology to a different arena, such as politics, it is not wanted here" I am really not hung up on such things and can just let it go. I don't think the comment was fair, but I am not going to dwell on it, neither should you. Consider it forgotten.

My only point is that IAR does not mean we don't have rules, it simply means that the rules are there for the purpose of improving and maintaining the encyclopedia and that that purpose is more important than the rules themselves. I see nothing ridiculous about the examples I gave, in my time as an administrator here I have seen many such "real word" examples of these issues coming into play(copyright and neutrality are not hypothetical situations, they occur every day here). Even the passage from WP:NOT you quoted makes it clear that there are rules. It simply is making clear that they are not written in stone or enforced without regard to common sense and our primary goal. I am not engaging in politics or attempting to distract with red herrings, I certainly have not been attempting any sort of sophistry with you. Rather I am making a very relevant and important point. IAR is intended to allow you to ignore rules when they prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, any further reading into that is pure imagination. Wikipedia is not an exercise in freedom, we are not devoid of rules, we have simply put the rules in their place. Chillum 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I believer our two positions are closer than it seemed at first. The only difference is that I object to the word "rules" and prefer the term "policies and guidelines" since that is what they are officially labelled as on their pages, I do not recall any being labeled as a "rule", only as policy or guideline. We both agree that consensus and ignoring them is a good thing that allows our Wikipedia to grow and expand. I like the term policy as opposed to rule because rule implies a strict addherence to and consequences for failure to comply; policy implies it is our attempt to do something this way, but sometimes we dont always follow it (it is my policy not to lie, but I do sometimes when the situation calls for it, such as "were you using your work computer for Wikipedia?", "no of course not" is my reply) and guideline implies it guides you to the right conclusion by you dont have to comply with the letter of it. I know its all semantics, but Chillum do you see why it may be important that we use such terms as guidelines and policies instead of words like rules, especially around newbies? I know things like copyright and libel and other such legal matters do occur, I was not trying to say they dont exist, I was merely saying that individuals dont use IAR to justify violating copyright laws (which exist regardless of our policies). If someone was to use IAR to justify such actions then that person has bigger problems than we can deal with using our policies, obviously there is a screw loose. Do you agree or disagree with my two assumptions- that semantics may matter with regards to what we call our "rules", and that IAR being used on what I called the "red herring topics" probably doesnt exist and therefore doesnt merit inclusion on our discussion?Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it really does not matter what it is called. You can call it something other than a "rule", but it still is a rule. We do enforce these things(by whatever name). I agree our disagreement may be mostly about semantics. Chillum 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Also I will point out that we have 3 policies that override consensus, Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Contrary to common belief consensus does not rule and override everything here, rather it is simply one tool we use for our only real goal which is to create an encyclopedia. We are not here to create a consensus driven society but to create an encyclopedia. We use consensus to achieve this goal, and the goal is more important than consensus. This is not my idea or my opinion, but both Wikipedia and foundation policy. IAR is about putting that one goal of creating an encyclopedia before policies like Consensus. Chillum 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As a frequent contributor to the noticeboards for OR and for RS I can tell you that consensus is used very very very often on deciding what is or is not OR or a reliable source. The very fact that those noticeboards exist and use consensus decisions based on common sense shows that there is no overriding policy regarding verifiability and NOR that makes the decision for us that we can supersede. Some read policy and guidelines as saying that reading a map is OR, but consensus has time and time again decided on the noticeboard that reading a map and putting into prose is not OR, there are several sources that on face value reading a policy regarding RS would lead some people to say it is an RS and to some not an RS, consensus interprets the policy or disregards it and decides whether or not CNN, NY Times, or Fox News is a RS on the particular topic and statement in question (something a policy simply cant do without being overly specific and trying to cover every single type of possible situation that may arise). Fox News on face value would be a RS but we routinely state that its opinions are too far to one side on political issues and therefore can not be used as an RS except to state what Fox News itself thinks (you can replace Fox News with MSNBC if you wish, same thing different end of spectrum). If those three policies you stated couldnt be overriden by editor's consensus then we wouldnt have those noticeboards or if we did they'd be very short statements of "yes it is" or "no it isnt", but instead we have long debates and discussions deciding the merits of the issue and what side it falls on, rarely does someone need to quote a policy or guideline and usually if they do no one listens, common sense and consensus rules the day not the "rules quoters", our policies and guidelines are vague for a reason, we are supposed to come up with the solutions on our own. Perhaps since they are so vague some may say that we arent overriding the policies on the noticeboards, and some may say that we are simply interpreting them differently do to their vagueness and therefore consensus is simply being used to implement a consensus view of what the policy says instead of ignoring the policy. So I am curious about your views on that situation.Camelbinky (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturally we use consensus to interpret those policies. What I am saying is that these policies are not open to be bypassed by consensus. A consensus to not be neutral must be ignored, and the reason for this is that neutrality is essential for the improvement and maintaining of our encyclopedia. In such a case IAR would apply to consensus itself. Once again the spirit of IAR is that improving and maintaining the encyclopedia is more important than our rules, and is in fact the reason we have rules to begin with. Chillum 14:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I would hope there has never been a consensus to ignore neutrality, I would be quite sad to find out that it has happened. In any case IAR is clear it applies only to an editor improving Wikipedia and so could never be used in such a manner. A consensus to ignore NPOV is not a case of individuals or a group using IAR, it is a case of a group of idiots. I think Chillum and I believe are holding the same coin, just looking at different sides of it.Camelbinky (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I come late to the discussion. I understand IAR as: The mission of Wikipedia (the first four pillars) takes precedence over the rules of Wikipedia; therefore, when a rule conflicts with the mission, the rule may be reasonably ignored in the service of the mission (the fifth pillar). --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How has IAR been used in actual practice on Wikipedia?

I'm curious to know if anyone has seen cases where IAR has been used without controversy on Wikipedia. If you know of such occasion(s), would you be willing to describe them?--Father Goose (talk) 05:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The first rule of Ignore all Rules is you do not talk about Fight Club Ignore all Rules. If you have to invoke a rule to justify your action that means it isn't obvious that your action was for the best. So for instance, when you put a speedy tag on some crappy article with an explanation (in English) of why it should be deleted, and it gets quietly deleted, both you and the deleting admin are ignoring all rules. --TS 05:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

How does that example differ from the usual rules-based procedure for speedily deleting an article?--Father Goose (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Both parties neglect to check whether the article falls under any of the categories for speedy deletion, or having made such a check they find that it doesn't qualify. Nevertheless they both agree that it should be deleted at once. --TS 05:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. To summarize, a snap assessment was made that "this page does not belong on Wikipedia, CSD be damned". Rule ignored, encyclopedia benefited. (Sound judgment on the part of the ignorers is presumed.)--Father Goose (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is still full of accurate, unsourced information, and there are many contributions of unsourced information that improve articles. Of course, the days of the 'wild west' when major topic areas were still basically vacant and the foundation of a lot of articles were laid down as rough essays by people typing about stuff they knew about are long, long gone. The problem is that unsourced information 'doesnt scale' because without policy against it, BLP problems and POV pushing become even more intractable. However, a maximalist interpretation of the policies on citing sources, no original research, no synthesis, no POV could probably be used to eliminate 99.99% of everything every published in any encyclopedia, not just Wikipedia. All of those policies and criteria involve drawing lines and making distinctions that are to some extent subjective. The point of IAR is to focus on improving the encyclopedia, and to give editors who might be afraid of making errors encouragement to contribute. Ben Kidwell (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So your example here works on at least two levels: a) we must avoid rigidity in enforcing or interpreting the rules when doing so would produce a less complete or otherwise poorer encyclopedia; and b) a degree of laissez-faire is necessary to keep from driving off imperfect but worthwhile contributors. Is that a fair assessment?--Father Goose (talk) 06:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right in both cases, Father Goose. Rules here often illustrate good practice, but don't worry about them if you're sure you're doing good (since illustration of good practice would be unnecessary) or you're sure you're doing bad (since no rule, or interpretation of a rule, justifies hurting the 'pedia). --an odd name 07:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sound judgement isn't necessary or presumed in the example I gave. All deletions can be reviewed. --TS 07:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just the fact that you don't actually have to know the rules to follow them; as long as you do something for the good of the 'pedia, it's fine under IAR.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 14:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I submit my entire edit history, which is mostly without controversy. It follows just 3 rules, including IAR. How those three rules combine in any particular situation is generally left as an exercise to the reader. (although I'm willing to explain any particular edit in detail, if so desired). --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

concesus

The language here is awfully wide in scope. Any issue with adding something about IAR being applied only where there is consensus to do so?--RadioFan (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

So every action on Wikipedia requires a preliminary discussion and some establishment of amorphous "consensus"? —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RadioFan, that would miss the point: you don't need to worry about the latest

consensus or rule if it would get in the way of building the encyclopedia. It's intentionally wide, so people like you and me can just join the site and edit and not have to care about rules (other editors can fix mistakes and issues, anyway). --an odd name 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR should be widely applied, therefore, its language is wide in scope. Feel free to offer a suggestion of wording here on the talk page, but attempting to define the situations in which this is appropriate is a recurring theme here which has not met with much success. kmccoy (talk) 04:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR is for individual editors to "ignore the rules", it is not intended to mean "ignore the rules only when the majority says so". Our rules arent rules, they are policies and guidelines for a reason, they guide us and give us broad suggestions on how to handle general problems and situations. If they dont apply or they hinder us in a specific situation then as an individual you have the right to ignore it and do whatever will benefit the encyclopedia. Instead of language saying "IAR being applied only where there is consensus to do so" it should read "apply IAR in every situation and use your common sense, rules are for chumps".Camelbinky (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

IAR is a great tool to get editors to stand back and ask themselves, does this have the potential to improve WP overall if so, let's IAR. The problem is IAR is used far too often as a loophole to get around other guidelines and common sense is tossed aside. I've seen IAR cited in discussions of copyright violations, Bios of living persons, and lack of references. The brevity of WP:IAR and fact that it is policy makes it sound like something that trumps all other policy or guidelines which it doesn't. Even a brief mention of using common sense would improve this policy. And no, WP:COMMON doesn't cover this sufficiently. Its an essay, this is policy and the policy should include common sense.--RadioFan (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, per WP:IAR, (ignoring the fact that it's only an essay), WP:COMMON does cover it.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 03:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

What level of "consensus"? Unanimity isn't consensus, it's bullying. So you mean everyone but one dissenter, everyone but two, and that's assuming that a wide enough range of voices was involved, which in most cases it isn't.

This policy

Is there any chance of this getting more content? All that there is in the policy is "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it". The policy has two essays. Since only two essays describe this, why is this a policy? Joe Chill (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's policy per Jimbo: "IAR is policy, always has been"--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy that makes no sense. Do you know how often it is abused? Definitely not as often as the other policies where it's more than a sentence and doesn't have two essays to back it up. Joe Chill (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why the "prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia," part is crucial.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 23:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you agree that it needs to have more than a sentence? Usually when WP:IAR is used, it gets other editors mad, doesn't do anything to help the discussion, and/or can cause editors to get uncivil comments thrown at them. Joe Chill (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

We have 17 archived talk pages of discussion and debate (the first comment on archive page 1 is pretty classic), and the page itself has gone through a lot of changes, with the simple, minimal versions achieving the strongest consensus. If the IAR rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia, feel free to ignore it. Ben Kidwell (talk) 00:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's surprising that a bunch of discussions only came out to one sentence. From how I've seen this used, the policy is almost worthless which isn't surprising with only a sentence. Joe Chill (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that if we start to place interpretations on the actual policy page, it's just as likely that the interpretations will be seized upon as being the actual policy. Editors will misinterpret IAR for whatever purposes suit them. I agree that the policy is worthless in that it doesn't tell you what to do in a specific situation. There is no "if X, then Y". But I don't think this policy is intended for such use, it's more a way of freeing your mind to focus on trying to make the encyclopedia better. It's an unfortunate fact that when people's minds are freed, they sometimes veer off into empty space. I think though that those minds would be veering with or without this policy. Franamax (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

From what you're saying, it seems like this should be labeled as an essay. Right now, I'm dealing with an editor that says that seven reliable sources with significant coverage, that the majority of editors think show notability, doesn't per this policy. Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think I found and commented on the discussion you referred to just now. In that case, some users and rationales, like rules, are better ignored. --an odd name 01:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason you see some editors get so upset when IAR is used is because those types of editors who dont like IAR think that the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are laws to be applied strictly by the letter. Well, for their information Wikipedia has no laws, and in fact the closest thing we have to a law IS IAR, it overrides ALL other policies as long as you are improving Wikipedia. If you arent improving the encyclopedia by ignoring the "rules" then you cant use IAR to justify your action, if you are improving the encyclopedia tell those who yell at you to shove it up their rectum and bring it to the relevant noticeboard (OR/N or RS/N or ANI or whereever is appropriate) where you are likely to find editors with similar respect about IAR. Ive worked very hard to strengthen IAR and fight against those who think our policies must be strictly interpreted much like Conservatives in the US think about the US Constitution (and in my opinion they are the same people who outside of Wikipedia think that). IAR is our cherished tradition and our right to do as editors of Wikipedia. It is minimal for a reason- it reflects the belief on Wikipedia that our policies and guidelines, much like IAR, are to be interpreted as needed and must be flexible to accomodate unseen circumstances that would be impossible to deal with by implementing policy strictly by the letter. Most importantly- Jimbo says IAR is and always will be, so it will be no matter what an editor says, this is his creation.Camelbinky (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well put. -- œ^™ 05:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with IAR in the sense that if a person had a heart attack while in a car I was driving I'd go through the red lights to get to a hospital. For wikipedia it is good that IAR is an explicit policy because there are a lot of anal retentive types who would stick wheel clamps onto ambulances and argue they did the right thing till the cows came home. However, here just considering an analogue in law since you don't like it called law, I would not think it was a particularly good idea to write into all the laws something saying - except that this is not a law and you can ignore all laws. In law terms you only need that if the law has a specific term in saying there is no discretion. The policies do not say they are absolute with no discretion so just saying it with one policy IAR is right rather than diluting all policies to say just follow your nose. Dmcq (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To continue your example, take the law: "Stop at all red traffic lights." Assume the existence of a law (as a documentation of a moral imperative): "Obtain immediate medical attention for life-threatening medical emergencies." In your scenario, the two laws conflict. Therefore a third law has to mediate between the two and resolve the conflict, to wit: "A law to obtain prompt medical attention for medical emergencies takes precedence over a law implementing traffic control." In WP, we have policies and guidelines. We also have a policy to resolve conflicts between various policies, namely IAR: When a policy and the mission (to improve the encyclopedia) conflict, the mission wins. We also have a general understanding, that a policy takes precedence over a guideline. (Finding a real-world example or hypothetical realistic example of a law taking precedence over a guideline is left as an exercise for the interested editor.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I used IAR this afternoon. The point is, nobody noticed. That's a successful application of the policy. I didn't even have to cite it. --Deskana (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tweak to categories

There's a long discussion in several sections at WT:POLICY that's going to generate a discussion at VPP and an RFC soon, but there are a few loose ends to clear up first. The gist of it is: in order to help people understand better how most policy pages tend to improve over time, we'd like to take the policy pages that don't improve over time for one reason or another (and not all of the reasons are bad), and move most of them into Category:Wikipedia legal policy or a proposed Category:Wikipedia administrative policy.

This page is one of the loose ends: it hasn't changed recently and probably never will, but it's not "legal" or "administrative" in nature. Currently, this page is in "Wikipedia policy", "Wikipedia process discussions" and "Wikipedia conduct policy". Blueboar pointed out that it's used to balance content policies more than other types of policy, so if we have to pick one of the policy subcats, Category:Wikipedia content policy would probably be a better choice than conduct policy. I have a slight preference to add some category that gets across the idea that this page is more like an eternal principle, and less like the content policies, which are constantly changing. WP:5P, a similar page, is in Category:Wikipedia basic information; does that get the idea across? - Dank (push to talk) 01:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely not legal policy or administrative policy. Nor is it really content policy. Conduct policy, that it is, but occasional invocation of this rule to excuse inexcusable conduct makes me worried about including it in that category. Is there a category for "clueful conduct policy"? Wikipedia basic information seems like the best home. IAR is basic information and as discussed many many times here, it's not a prescription for any specific action, it's background information (imo). Franamax (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is now at WP:VPP#Wikipedia administrative policy. - Dank (push to talk) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Demoting this policy?

I recently reverted a good-faith demotion of this policy.

Demoting this or any other policy to some other status needs to have a much bigger discussion than the one cited. This discussion should be clearly-titled and listed at {{cent}}.

The last mention of WP:AIR at the pump before the edit Dank cited was on November 28, where Dank (talk · contribs) summarised previous discussions.

IAR has been a policy for ages if I recall. Barring a good argument to demote it, I would leave it as-is.

Note that the "Project-wide principles" listed on {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} are all policies. These words make it even more important that demotion of this policy be widely open to discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Though editors who employ WP:IAR properly will also realize that arguing about the template at the top of the page is a bit ironic.... TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad call, I think, although this is how it generally works: people discuss changes to policy for weeks, everyone yawns, and then when you finally make the edit, people shout "no consensus" and revert. See the weeks-long discussion at WT:POLICY#list of pages, at the Village Pump, and in the section right above this one. In none of those 3 places was there any support for keeping this as a conduct policy, although Blueboar made a good point early on that this policy has more connection to the content policies than the conduct policies, so a dual role as a content policy and a principle might be best. But the discussion moved on from that point on all 3 pages, and Blueboar didn't object to the idea that this page is more principle than policy ... which is kind of obvious, isn't it? It's been the 5th pillar since 5P was invented, and this page doesn't change in the way that the other "Project-wide principles" are constantly changing ... because it can't, because it's not a policy, it's a principle. - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I suggested all along that the proposed change should get an RfC, but no one agreed with me, on the theory that the changes were so uncontroversial that none was needed. - Dank (push to talk) 18:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. This reaction is exactly why we had the discussion about all policy cats at once rather than one policy page at a time ... when you do one, people wonder if what you're really doing is demoting the page. When you do them all, then it becomes clear that it's the definition of the policy subcats that are in the process of changing, not the meaning of any one particular page. See the linked discussions; "policy" used to be a very sloppy notion, which we're trying to clarify. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

P.P.P.S. I have no objection to an RfC, but I suggest we wait until several people want one, and have a particular question in mind to be decided by the RfC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were proposing to put it in the category basic information rather than conduct policy, not that you were going to remove the policy marker altogether. It is a principle I suppose but it has real direct effect so I think it is better marked as a policy, principles to me means something that guides policy and may be a bit too far from the coalface as it were. Dmcq (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to keeping it in Category:Wikipedia policy and removing it from Category:Wikipedia conduct policy, if that's what people want to do ... I would prefer we have some kind of subcat, both for navigation and so people mentally group it with similar policy pages ... if we're going to keep it as policy, I would think Category:Wikipedia procedural policy would now be the closest fit. - Dank (push to talk) 18:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Had there been an infobox template at the top of WP:AIR pointing to each of these discussions as they occurred, I would likely have not reverted. As it is, now that I know where the discussions were, I will have to read them, see what links to them, and see if they were adequately advertised and discussed before withdrawing my objection to the change. The fact that this caught me by surprise is strong evidence that it was not advertised in all the right places. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good argument, and your reversion doesn't bother me; I'd much rather have reasoned discussion than the apathy that we usually get when discussing policy categorization :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As this is the earliest, simplest and most widely applicable policy on Wikipedia (we all use it every single day), any attempt to demote it would be unwise. As it's one of the core policies, if not the core policy, popping it into some obscure subcategory would be inappropriate. --TS 18:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

As an early supporter of IAR, it never ceases to amaze me just how much controversy it continues to generate. It ain't going away, and on those occasions where someone has tried to "improve" it with rulecruft and/or explanations, it is inevitably reverted back to its original form. Ditto for attempts to demote it to something less than what it is. It is, quite literally, a rule that is honored in the breach, and it needs no rulecruft and/or explanations to make it easier to understand. For those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who do not, no explanation will suffice. // Internet Esquire (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Reagan famously said "I didn't leave the Democratic Party, the party left me." No one has expressed any desire to demote IAR; people have been talking about what it means to be a policy page. The suggestion that it be considered a "principle" came out of the discussions on this talk page, at WT:POLICY and at WP:VPP. However, personally, I have no objection at all to leaving it in the policy cat, as long as it transitions from conduct policy to the new procedural policy subcat. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring all rules in the real world: Generals who aide dictators and the like aside, in the real world nobody gets fired or prosecuted for obeying the law or company policy. Yet, we "ignore all rules" for the common good all the time. Police choose not to enforce speed limits to the letter, companies choose not to sue each other in the interests of good relationships, people choose not to raise parliamentary procedure issues at every opportunity in meetings, etc. This is the spirit behind WP:IAR and this is why even if technically it usually isn't a "policy that can get you blocked if you violate it repeatedly," it should have a weight at least as high as a stated policy. WP:IAR goes hand in hand with a part of WP:NOT, WP:BUREAUCRACY. Bottom line: You don't have to call it a policy, but whatever you call it should have the same moral weight as a policy. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the intent was that "principles" are higher than "policy", which I agree with in an abstract/ideal sense. However, the wikilawyers won't respect that (unless we make it policy ;) so I suggest we mark it as both. (This is after arguing with someone who refused to recognize wording that was given in the 5Pillars as significant, "because it's not policy".) -- Quiddity (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked this question at the VPP pump thread as well: does anyone have any objection if we keep the "policy" cat, and change the policy subcat from "conduct" to "procedural"? Would anyone prefer that we do an RfC first? - Dank (push to talk) 19:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as this page keeps the {{policy}} box, everyone will be happy with any category-name-tweaks. No separate rfc needed just for that. -- Quiddity (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

[copied from VPP]: Hmmm. It doesn't fit with procedural as I see it. It definitely needs to be a policy, but maybe it should reside in the main category rather than be sub-categorised. Hiding T 15:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, how about no subcat? - Dank (push to talk) 18:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• That's what I meant, yes. Sorry I wasn't clear enough. Hiding T 10:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If principles are "higher" than policies, then the meta-policy pages such as Wikipedia:Policies and Guidelines as well as meta-policy-templates should be retitled and edited to reflect this. Personally, I like the idea but it won't be trivial to implement. It will also require a consensus after a widely-advertised centralized discussion. By "widely advertised" I mean either a wiki-wide banner or a header on the top of every policy page, at a minimum. Of course, it should also be listed on {{cent}}. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would need a whole separate proposal. We definitely treat them as higher (ie see the current wording/layout in the {{Policy list}} and {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} templates), and we use the word "principles" a lot at WP:Policies and guidelines. But some folks dispute their significance. As I'm one of the people that has argued against adding any "policy" banner tags to the 5P, I find this painfully ironic... (See Wikipedia talk:Five pillars#Label this as an infopage for the most recent iteration of this perennial discussion). -- Quiddity (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not only is this page policy, it is our most important policy. ^Chillum 15:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This is the absolute most important policy. Heck, it's a pretty important principle in my life (crap. Maybe I need to go on a longer wikibreak...)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 17:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not the most important policy. The various points in WP:5P are no more important than each other. It is silly to say that 'ignore all rules'is more important than notability when developing an encyclopaedia, or keeping the content free or that editors should treat each other with respect or even that one shouldn't slander people in their biographies. Dmcq (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of the rules you listed would prevent you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia, so they are not really in competition with IAR. The goal of the project is to build and maintain an encyclopedia, IAR makes sure we can accomplish that goal without our rules getting in the way. I put forth that IAR can be the most important policy without diminishing the value or contradicting our other important policies. ^Chillum 17:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)