Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" means/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

IAR c.1656

Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by, but that all, with the measure of light which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life. NY Yearly Meeting on Faith

I just ran into this at Inner light. I'd like to include it here at the very top with the other quotations. It's a Quaker "advice" from 1656. Judging from the perspective of modern style, perhaps it's a bit heavy. Others might object that it's Quaker doctrine (but read it - it's an advice saying essentially "ignore all doctrine"). In any case, if there are no objections (fat chance), I'll include it. Smallbones (talk) 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can you explain the idea more clearly? MBelgrano (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

My idea - put this quote in the article right at the very top.

The idea of the quote - "these things we do not lay upon you as a rule ... and so ... these (policies and guidelines) may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not from the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." i.e. ignore all rules written in the year 1656. I'd think the only controversial part (other than being a bit hard to read), is the passing mention of "the light." By this Quakers mean something like a "spark of Divinity," "your personal insight into the infinite," "the Holy Spirit," or even "Jesus Christ" (though there is no rule). Smallbones (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I think as long as you made it clear with an introduction sentence that- many other organizations, faiths, and groups have had a similar structure of "ignoring all rules" as Wikipedia does; such as the Quakers- (insert quotation). We may be able to add an entire new subsection to the page to have more of these "ignore all rules" rules from other groups; in order to show it isnt something unique to Wikipedia, that this is in fact fairly common to political, fraternal, religious groups/orders through out time. Pure communism in fact is pretty much based upon the belief that once real communism is attained there is only the one rule "ignore all rules" and there wont be any need for government, bureaucracy, rules, police, or structure.Camelbinky (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say just giving the quote at the top, making it clear that it's a quote and where it comes from, would make the idea quite clear.--Kotniski (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would advise against mixing real politics or religious statements among policies, guidelines or even essays. First, because readers may be tempted to think that, if a certain doctrine applies, then all it's background applies. And that won't be the case, wikipedia is not a religion nor a testing ground for political systems, it's an online enciclopedia and everything else is builded around it to help to improve it. At some or other point we may borrow ideas or procedures that help with that goal, but under our own terms and only to the extent that serves our needs. And second, if we declare support or rejection for a certain political or religious doctrine (even if outside articles), we would have to start discussions among supporters and detractors of such doctrine, which would be completely useless.

By the way, if you are interested in "Ignore all rules" as a concept, you should better add more information at Breaching experiment, Norm (sociology) and other related articles MBelgrano (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As a humorous aside- it is kinda funny that the Quakers had a "rule" to "ignore all rules" and that Richard Nixon was a Quaker...he really took that "ignore all rules" to heart! Who knows better than President Nixon on how to ignore a rule (or law)? Too bad we dont have a quote by Nixon "I never saw a rule I didnt ignore".Camelbinky (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ardo

Also know as `Do, to attract or tempt,flattering and desirable, to fascinate:charm. having beauty; having qualities that give great pleasure or satisfaction to see, hear, think about, etc.; She has a delightful senses or mind: always beautiful dress; has beautiful speech. Mocha skin tone,Hour Glasses body shape, Gorgeous, top notch glamour chick ,Futtolicious, Hella Fine,FIVESTAR, alluring, angelic, appealing, beauteous, bewitching, charming, classy, comely, cute, dazzling, delicate, delightful, divine fine, foxy*, good-looking, gorgeous —Preceding unsigned comment added by Do256 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Competent Independent Writers and WP:RS - Carl Sagan's Indigo

I had put a link in the Carl Sagan page that was challenged because of its source. Though it seems to me all allegations had been refuted in the talk page, the editor removing my edit still did not think it was appropriate by WP:RS. I went then to RS Noticeboard to argue my case. I met deaf ears and some snickering exemplified by, when I called to the discussion WP:IAR, I was given the statement that improving Wikipedia didn't matter, anyway. For proper analysis of this issue, I would request a look at Sagan's Talk page, the dialog in the RS Noticeboard and the statement begun there but that I am completing and giving in full here.

[DISCLOSURE for the purpose of context] I have been making a few minor edits here and there, but never engaged extensively in Wikipedia mainly because I do not have the time, not for lack of appreciation. Recently I thought that content from the site http://thepatientacapacitor.com/ would be useful and carry value to Wikipedia so I edited a few entries and inserted reference links. For the record these were;

"Perspective (graphical)"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Perspective (visual)"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/convergence-of-contrail-lines-in-the-horizon/
"Inertia coupling"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2010/01/the-physics-of-moving-about/
"Alexander Abian"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Gravitational binding energy"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/07/if-stephen-fry-wanted-to-blow-up-the-moon/
"Fermi Paradox"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/06/why-would-extraterrestrial-aliens-contact-us/
"Carl Sagan"	linking to...	http://thepatientcapacitor.com/2009/10/carl-sagans-indigo-children/

The author of these posts identifies himself in the /author/ page as a physicist by training with PL Monteiro as his real name, the whois for the owner of the domain says Paulo L Monteiro owns the site, and a search in Linkedin will turn up http://www.linkedin.com/in/plimamonteiro . A technicality important for the everything are rules and regulations people, is if the site is a blog or a start-up online publication. From the information in Linkedin, I would say the owner considers the latter should apply. In any case this distinction may be artificial given the arguments I am going to produce.

As to the links (now removed after the discussion in WP:RS/N) and referenced articles, I would say that at least in the "Alexander Abian" and "Inertia Coupling," the links I have added are of great relevance. In "Alexander Abian" the post linked examines in detail the facts of figures of the matter; in "Inertia Coupling" the post linked to allows a huge leap in understanding of what Inertia Coupling really is. In these two as in all the others it seems to me, my editing and insertion of links, should be read by the usefulness and value to the readers of Wikipedia. That's the consideration I made when making the edits, but I do admit this may be just my own personal opinion, and other editors may dispute it.

[To finish with context:] There was a legitimacy challenge in the "Fermi Paradox" that the editor making it dropped after a brief exchange. The statement there rounds off the whole discussion in the entry, which I think is appropriate to the head summary, and links to a post that is an allegory, conveying in this way points hard to make in other ways. More recently the legitimacy of the source was challenged in the "Carl Sagan" page, but in this case even the refutation of false claims that would undermine the credibility of the source, refutations whose acceptance would allow reaching an editorial agreement, were not ackowledged, the editor challenging the source sticking categorically to his interpretation of Wikipedia directives and rules, in the process raising ethical concerns I cannot simply pretend I didn't notice. If you are examining this issue, you may want to review the discussion there Sagan's Talk page. The issue boiled down to what a Reliable Source is and if the thepatientcapacitor.com is one.

[THE ETHICAL ISSUES:] In the Sagan talk page I laid three different common sense challenges that could be made to the statement and link I inserted. These were 1) Is the statement appropriate and does it enrich Wikipedia? 2) Does the source validate the statement in ways that enrich Wikipedia? 3) Is the source reliable? The people debating me decided not to take the first two, instead focusing on the last, the only one that raises ethical concerns. In these I stated: "The fact is that it is ethically improper from me and from Wikipedia to declare that the (you call it blog) site is not a reliable source here, but then find that the links and statements [elsewhere] are significant enriching contributions to the users of Wikipedia, and the sourced site is reliable there." And additionally: "It would be highly objectionable from Wikipedia to keep those links unchallenged for the time being, and when someone gets [...] to rewriting [around] the original material in the specific blog posts, the links will be trashed out." So it becomes this: if the patientacapacitor.com becomes an unreliable source to Wikipedia, none of its original content, data, results, mathematical proofs, ideas can ever be used by Wikipedia in any way. This includes a rewrite of the content. Even if there are no laws against rewrite of, say, a mathematical proof, doing this would be to refuse to source the creator of the original content, while at the same time accepting it from someone else who in fact stole the ideas. These are the matters of principle.

[Assumptions:] At this point I would like to clarify that this analysis in not about thepatientcapacitor, or not only about the patientcapacitor. I will assume in what follows that that particular site satisfies criteria I will be writing about, but to consider that fact, will continue to rest on Wikipedia editors agreeing with such criteria, and ascertaining thepatientcapacitor satisfies them. Additionally and from the outset, I would like to make a distinction about what common sense and pragmatic rules of thumb say is a Reliable Source as Commonly Understood and what Wikipedia editors interpret as a Reliable Source By The Rules. Notice that in the latter, the essence of the matter is not what Wikipedia directives say, but instead what editors think they mean.

[Reliable Source as Commonly Understood] So what would be a Reliable Source to me, the rules of thumb, the criteria I think a source should have for me to consider it worthy of reference and belief? In general reliable sources have these characteristics 1) They are well written and care with detail was taken; 2) They are well researched, 3) The author articulates ideas that are intelligible and cogent; 4) There are no obvious flaws in reasoning or fact; 5) There is no intention to deceive or mislead; 6) Most, if not all, assumptions can be verified (either by our knowledge of the subject or independently in a different reference); 7) Generally information for verification purposes is supplied. To this, as a group of characteristics, I have to add a few words of alert to preconceived ideas we may have, to cloud our judgment in assessing a source: 1) You may not like the style. The writer is informal when you would prefer formal, or writes formal and you prefer informal. This depends on who the writer thinks s/he is addressing with the writing and something to be published in the Physics Review Letters for sure is inappropriate if trying to entice scientific curiosity in young people. 2) You may not like the content having a lot of colorful pictures. You would prefer dry graphs. Again who is the author writing to? 3) You just took a quick look and jumped to unpleasant conclusions. Is that fair if you really did not examine at all the source? 4) You may never have heard of the author. Well, authorities and experts sometimes go wrong, the author may actually be the best world expert in the very narrow field s/he is writing about but it just happens s/he never appeared in the cover of People Magazine, and talent, knowledge and understanding are not the exclusive domain of Ivy League, CalTech or MIT professionals. But the really important argument here begins by noticing that a mathematical proof, articulating ideas to a conclusion, may be incidentally made with different details by different people, but the fact of it does not depend on who made it. Would a proof of a geometrical theorem be valid if done by Michio Kaku, but invalid, being done the exact same way, by Joe The Carpenter? Of course there are different expectations in this: if receiving the proof from Kaku, you would think he thought about it, and he is qualified to make it. But that does not change the fact that getting that same proof from Joe, you can check and see if the proof does do what it is supposed to prove. The end result of shutting yourself out to any Reliable Source as Commonly Understood is that you'll only know, think and believe what comes from some authority, and I dare predict that in those circumstances in all likelihood you'll find yourself belonging to the group of people that know nothing, think nothing and do not understand anything of what they believe in.

Of course there's a line to be drawn in this and the argument of authority sometimes is the only one we can have. Michio Kaku worked extensively in String Theory, of which I do not know anything in any depth, so if Kaku says something about it, I'll believe him. I would not say the same about Joe. The crux of the matter here is that I do not really know or understand String Theory in any technical depth. However Michio Kaku can examine Joe The Carpenter statements about String Theory, and see if there's anything to them. At this point I wrote down a group of specific criteria to ascertain if a source is reliable, under an empiric pragmatic assessment anyone should be able to make. I did point out however that the editor making the check should be equipped with a minimum of the background knowledge and understanding required to read through the source, or trash it out for evident worthlessness.

[FLAWS WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT - ONE] I was a Wikipedia enthusiast already back in the day mainstream considered it unreliable, with the collective editing process making it prone to error. However I saw the possibilities: with everyone contributing hardly a subject would go unnoticed and hardly a detail would go unreported. Vandalism is cleaned up and edits go through, and are exposed to the verification of, many different people. Today the vision of its creators has been fulfilled, and even recently news arose that Wikipedia compared favorably with Encyclopædia Britannica. Having as a kernel for policy, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is probably a huge error because it could be so much more. Let us count the ways that that is probably a mistake: 1) Encyclopedias are that large number of thick fat books lining my shelves to impress the neighbors that get some use 3 or 4 times in a decade, just to ascertain some simple fact; 2) Encyclopedias are not learning tools. You can check some facts, but you will not learn Differential Geometry from them; 3) The style of writing is stiff, formal, as abstract as possible, tightened with the most obscure words in the lexicon available. Hardly the way to write if you want people to understand you. At this point you may think Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. But think again. I come equipped with the standard issue tools (and a bit more) of a Physics Graduate. That means I am able to understand most Physics and a few topics of Advanced Mathematics. There are an immense number of topics in cutting edge research I would like to learn and Wikipedia does carry them. I am becoming, however, increasingly aware that I can read and use only Physics topics in which I already know what is going on. You get a few sentences, none of them daringly explanatory, because those are immediately cut out, and the equations, all of them, are written in the most formal and abstract notation mathematically possible. If you don't know already how to read them and what they mean, you're bound not to learn anything.

A simple example. Two weeks ago I was asked a question about Condensed Matter Physics. There, and in some circumstances pure waves described by

$e^{i\mathbf {k} \cdot \mathbf {r} }$

are used. My recollection is that

$k={\frac {2\pi }{\lambda }}$

but would you believe that in the immensely technical resources about Condensed Matter Physics, I could not find the latter? I jumped between a few pages and found nothing. I did remember it should be this way, was just checking to make sure, and examination of the former expression allows to infer what $k$ is, but that is to me, and I already know what is being represented. Do you think Wikipedia can be recommended to a curious kid, young person or adult and that they may be able to learn something? These days the only thing I look for in Wikipedia is pop culture trivia and fringe subjects. Of course I see other items as well, but not regularly.

[FLAWS WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT - TWO] Several facts are contributing into turning Wikipedia into the stiff resource one uses 3 or 4 times in a decade, to fish for a fact, but whose potential for public education is squandered. Let's see one at a time. 1) The first is the very idea that it should be an encyclopedia and we know what happens to these. Instead of simply laying down the facts, there should a clear and distinct possibility of understanding them (in English). 2) Dispute resolution, edit wars, ego driven disagreements. The only way we know to overcome these is through guidelines and policies, that when applied by half-wits results in a Nash equilibrium of the lowest common denominator. You cannot get good creative explanatory writing when through disputes every sentence is stripped bare to the very essential, beyond which no sentence exists. 3) The need to keep wackos at bay. Again guidelines and regulations. 4) The ease to sling about policies and guidelines by nuisance 5-0's, that do not need to understand the guidelines and principles to slap them at anyone, particularly if that someone is acting in good faith. There seems to be a number of these, that do not edit or contribute to anything, but are always in a dispute with what someone else did. 5) The creation of an insider community, proficient in the Wikipedia legalese and not open to newcomers. 6) The diminishing in the rate of new volunteers stepping forward to help Wikipedia grow. Can anyone blame them, with the legalese and hassles, to go through if they try to do something?

[FLAWS WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CIRCUMVENT - THREE] The problems already mentioned and a few more, constitute stumbling blocks that Wikipedia is not capable, and will never be able, to address to any significant degree. As a structural example, the information it contains is scattered, fragmented in a multiplicity of interrelated entries (when referring to the same subject). Unlike a book that has a thread in the author reasoning, a Wikipedia reader will have a hard time knowing where to start and the sequence of reads to make. He may make such a list, with previous knowledge of the subject or with help from an educator. But it is in the nature of each entry, and the cool thing of Markup Language, that crisscrossed references go in all directions. This is testable: Special Relativity, from the Lorentz transformations to Minkowski space, is a pretty tidy neat piece of Physics. Ask someone with no previous knowledge but mathematically equipped, to learn it from Wikipedia and no other materials. And lines of reasoning are something very poorly represented in Wikipedia. There may be a few simple mathematical proofs, but little else, because as I said an argument carrying to a conclusion, would have editors chopping it to pieces in no time. Imagine for an moment that Richard Feynman was an unknown but still accepted by WP:RS and that he tried to write an entry to Wikipedia in the style of his famous The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Do you think other editors would let him? What this says is that editors technically competent in the general area they keep under scrutiny, may not be good communicators, may not have any experience or sensitivity to teaching, and other than hard fact they have a terrible time conveying to anyone, probably don't even understand the fuss I am making with communication skills. The irony of this is that Wikipedia, going after the respectability and reputation of an Encyclopedia, is trying to achieve the standards of reference appropriate for experts, shored up in scholarly academic papers published in peer reviewed journals. But does anyone truly believe that the people that live by those standards, come to Wikipedia to know what is going on in their fields of expertise?

(topics: public education; perspective, interpretation and insight)

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery. —George Pólya, quoted from WP:WIARM.

To be continued. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Um ...(TL;DR)... Are you making a specific suggestion for improving the WP:WIARM essay? If not, this is the wrong venue. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I was. But if it is TL;DR, I guess there's no point in going at it. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

a test for proposing IAR, and winnowing down the bullets in the section on what it is not

In most (but certainly not all) of the situation where another editor cited IAR as a justification for doing something, they ultimately end up either indicating that they clearly do not understand the rule (sometimes even for lack of wanting to take the time to read it), disagree with its central premise, or disagree with the objectives of Wikipedia. I think an important test for using IAR (when there is disagreement on the application), is if the editor in question can clearly state the purpose of the rule, and why other editors might have decided on that rule.

I think this covers a number of the bullets on the page now in "What 'Ignore all rules' does not mean" and might help reduce the length of that list. I think this list could be reduced to:

• Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged.
  • A good step for an application of IAR is if the editor citing it can state the purpose of the rule, and why other editors might have decided on that rule. This helps make sure the editor proposing IAR understand the wisdom of the many editors who settled on the rule.

• In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus, and the consensus should be based on what is best for the goals of Wikipedia. For more information about the goals of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.

• There are some rules that can not be ignored, such as Office actions and Copyright violations

Comments/concerns? 0¹⁸ (talk) 01:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

While liking your text, I think the list should not be reduced: every point made is worth keeping because the reason for having an essay like this is to cover situations that commonly occur. It may be possible to replace the whole list with a single short principle, but the people who need to read this do not understand the principle – the examples provide clarity. Re your point on consensus: while true, that wording might obscure the fact that consensus cannot override WP:5P or its policies. Johnuniq (talk) 04:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Rules are guidelines

If they are, why not just call them guidelines instead of rules? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That's what I do. I find it perfectly agreeable to eschew the use of the word "rule" entirely when working on Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Special pleadings

Too often invocations of WP:COMMONSENSE appear to be special pleadings -- "someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption." Would it be reasonable to include greater emphasis on the need to justify these exemptions, the need to show that the exception is for exceptional reasons (not merely to reasons that would likewise apply to hundreds of other cases for which such an exception would not ordinarily be considered)? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

More important than "exceptional reasons" is the need to justify how it improves the encyclopaedia. Ultimately the deciding factor is not whether the reasons are exceptional or mundane, it is (or should be) whether the edit (that breaks a rule) improves the encyclopaedia. The policies provide guidelines so that we don't have to debate the specific merits of an edit. If I dispute an edit, it may be sufficient for me to cite a policy that was violated as justification for reverting that edit or changing the text. However if the initiator of the disputed edit cites IAR (of which COMMONSENSE is a subset) then that editor must explain how the edit makes Wikipedia better, independently of whether the reasons are exceptional or mundane. Remember, IAR says (with my emphasis) is "If a rule prevents you from improving ... Wikipedia, ignore it" - it does not say "If there are exceptional circumstances, ignore a rule." Mitch Ames (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If application of a rule does not generally lead to improvement of the encyclopaedia, then it is the rule that ought to be changed rather than an exception being made to it. Whilst I would agree that what improves Wikipedia should be the ultimate objective, arguments over whether observing or ignoring a specific rule in a specific case helps or hinders this objective tend to be very subjective. In the absence of a relevant circumstance that is exceptional, this would tend to lead to arguments that simply assert a subjective viewpoint that the rule helps/hinders -- which does not solve much, except perhaps by a WP:VOTE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Content on the Page itself

The caption under the photo of a speed limit sign is not meaningful. One does not draw a limit in this sense: one defines a limit. Perhaps it was meant to say something like, "Sometimes you have to draw a line." but that wouldn't be a very good way to express the thought. Probably the picture and caption should go as it's kind of silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.205.187 (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Just look at the speedometer and you will realise why :) PsiEpsilon (talk) 06:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For those of you with comedic tastes, the comedians at Uncyclopedia call their policies "ignorable policies." Cheers, The Doctahedron, 17:45, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Ignore All Rules mean that we should allow wikipedia to turn into the "American television watchers' encyclopedia"

Requested move closed by editor who has clear bias and conflict of interest: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:The_Big_Bang_Theory#Requested_move — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.204.129 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Result = No consensus to move. If your young child asked me "what is THE BIG BANG THEORY?" I'd reply with "Please, don't yell. Do you mean the television series or the theory of the big bang?" --AussieLegend (talk) 09:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC) ---- I'm afraid you have misunderstood what I said above. Neither of the points I raised were about "The" and "theory".... .... NewbyG ( talk) 06:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomic, moot court

It seems almost churlish to invoke policy here, especially as this is an essay not an article, but what the hell, since sometimes rules are useful! In WP:LINK, we have,

"Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with a very few words, do so. Also use a link, but do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence, especially if this requires going into nested links (a link that goes to a page with another technical term needed to be linked, which goes to a page with a link to another technical term, and so on). Don't assume that readers will be able to access a link at all, as, for example, they might have printed an article and be reading the hard copy on paper"

Now, I'm a reasonably well-educated individual, but I had no idea what "nomic" or "moot court" meant, and so so their use here seems to be (at worst) showing off and (at best) forcing the reader into link-chasing. Since this is one of the most important essays, would anyone mind if this para were improved? Thom2002 (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I would support contextualizing the last bit of the sentence with "... nor a game of Nomic or Mao." I think moot court is fine because "moot" is sufficiently common in the working vocabulary of the literati that people who do not recognize it should be encouraged to look it up. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I propose to add the following (or something like it) to the What "Ignore all rules" does not mean section.

• "Ignore all rules" is not a good argument for ignoring anything that's inconvenient. For example, in an AfD, it's not helpful to argue that WP:IAR means the subject doesn't need to be WP:Notable or that the article doesn't need to be WP:Verifiable.

Before I do anything, I would like to know that consensus would support this change and that the wording seems acceptable. I invite comments, please. Msnicki (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I have ignored the mess at AfD for some time and so am unaware of why such an addition would be desirable. There are a lot of things that IAR does not mean, and they cannot be listed. Apart from the fact that there are too many, adding precise examples leaves the wikilawyer plenty of room to assume that what they want to do is ok because it is not one of the listed examples. The first sentence of the proposed text (cannot ignore inconvenient rules) might be good, but the example is not helpful as cases always need to be considered individually. Anyone closing an AfD must be aware that invoking IAR is the worst possible argument, particularly in that context, unless it is backed with a really good reason. Johnuniq (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not the "What 'Ignore all rules' does not mean" section already make it abundantly clear that IAR is not in itself a good argument? ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You and I might think so, but it's not so clear to others, e.g., here, by a sysop. But it's also possible the section really isn't as abundantly clear as it should be insofar as it focuses on actions. It doesn't explicitly state that WP:IAR is also not a valid argument in an AfD or on an article talk page where insistence that important policies and guidelines like WP:N and WP:V don't matter usually only frustrates discussion. Msnicki (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer" is perfectly clear. The example you give is not a misuse of IAR: it is entirely appropriate to point out that one is deliberately ignoring a rule when providing what one believes is an overriding consideration. Whether that reason should override, or is even correct, is a matter for legitimate debate; but just as "IAR" is not in itself a valid answer, "He said 'IAR'" is not in itself a valid rebuttal. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. – When I am accused of "slavish adherence to the rules", as does happen from time to time, I try to show why I believe the principles underlying the rule should override the rationale for ignoring it. I.e., I try to make my case on fundamental principles without reliance on the rule itself, and I try to address the case at issue rather than defend the universality of the rule. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You've given me an idea in your first paragraph. What would you think of this?

• "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke reason to break a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.

Msnicki (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is almost never a good idea to adjust essays or guidelines to suit a particular incident, particularly when, as several editors have pointed out, the incident was not a problem. The sysop was quite correct in their statement, and it was not a bad use of IAR, and this is not the right page to express disagreement with their comment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

MfD discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/more detail that has some relevance to this essay. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

IAR vs CONSENSUS

As I understand it, WP:IAR is entirely subordinate to WP:CONSENSUS. In other words, if the WP:CONSENSUS policy page says you shouldn't ignore a rule (because there's consensus against doing so, or because of reasons given in WP:CONEXCEPT), you should never do it, even if you believe you are improving or maintaining Wikipedia. —Ashley Y 05:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Diagram

There is a problem with the diagram recently added to this essay (aside from being too big): it does not account for the very first sentence of the essay, "You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia."

I am not sure we need a diagram like this, because it portrays something very simple as being rather complicated, but if one is included then the first decision point should be "Are you aware of any rules covering your idea?", and if the answer is no then go directly to "Are you sure that this change is a good change..." As it stands, the diagram is not right because, as pointedly reiterated in the very first bullet point, "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing." ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Common sense is not a principle

I took out a sentence that was poorly written, violated editing "common sense" with an entire sentence being bolded and worded as a question, and answered that said question with a factual fallacy. Common sense is not listed as a principle at the 5P or in Jimbo's Statement of Principles, nor is it listed among the list of Principles pages.Camelbinky (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is:

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

It seems the text was added in January 2011, just after removal of similar wording in this edit. The text is well established on this page, which shows that the phrase is well qualified to be regarded as the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". If someone wants to assert that common sense is not a fundamental policy, they should create an essay with advice or opinions contrary to those expressed on this page. In keeping with not a bureaucracy, the precise details of what should or should not be done at Wikipedia are often hard to pin down to a written policy. Nevertheless, the advice to "use common sense" is used sufficiently often by experienced editors to show that it is more than just the view of a fringe—while not rating a mention at WP:5P, it is fundamental, despite the lack of documentation. One way to judge whether use common sense is fundamental is to consider whether an edit should be made if the edit complies with written policies, but conflicts with the editor's common sense. Johnuniq (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact that there IS dispute in Wikipedia regarding whether common sense even exists from one individual to another and across different cultures (we aren't all Americans on English Wikipedia I remind you) is reason that it is NOT fundamental. And you even state "lack of documentation", well why is there a lack of documentation? Because it is not a principle, you cant state it is a principle when it isn't, even in an essay, you have to back up your philosophy. The sentence itself counters common sense in how it is worded and with the bolding, it looks more like the ranting of a lunatic.Camelbinky (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Another quote

Found this on the Wikiquote article for nonsense:

• There is absolutely no common sense; it is common nonsense.
  • Henry David Thoreau, Paradise (To Be) Regained (1843).

Should it be added under this section? Eman235/talk 06:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this essay need some common sense?

In the article is clearly says:

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

But if you look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which is a policy of Wikipedia, it also says:

Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.

Surely this is contradictory? Also this section is a little odd:

There is no common sense

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.

— René Descartes(ref) Descartes, René (1637). Le Discours de la Méthode. Part I, incipit. Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée; car chacun pense en être si bien pourvu, que ceux même qui sont les plus difficiles à contenter en toute autre chose n'ont point coutume d'en désirer plus qu'ils en ont.(/ref)

First of all, the translation is poor I think. Better would be: "Common sense is, of all things in the world, the most shared; even those who are hardest to satisfy in everything else, and are in the habit of desiring more they have, think that they are well supplied."

But the strange thing is that it follows a heading entitled There is no common sense, which seems to be a complete contradiction. Also, if you look at the article common sense, there is a considerable philosophical support behind the notion of common sense, although the precise meaning of the term is probably not agreed. --Mrjulesd (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: See my above post for a possible alternate quote. Eman235/talk 03:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone behind this, anyone at all?

Having been here for years now, I have to say that I find very little interest in this principle among other editors. Most seem to ignore it, many won't even discuss it, as if it were taboo. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there something to discuss which has not been well aired? Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss whether or not the vast majority of editors on English Wikipedia care about the purported prevalence of common sense at all. That is not my experience, sad to say. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

You're saying people ignore the "ignore all rules" principle? Well it is permitted as "ignore all rules" suggests you can ignore the "ignore all rules" principle?

A little more seriously, I'd say that things are a little bureaucratic, where following rules, even essays, seems more popular than using common sense. But at least we have this principle in place, that you can at least argue for common sense; but people in general prefer to follow rules rather than to look at what maybe is the best thing for a given situation. But how you overcome this I don't know.

I don't know how many people will read this, but perhaps it's a ripe topic for discussion somehow. --Mrjulesd (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Examples

I believe this essay would be enhanced by a list of examples of articles that were improved by WP:IAR, listing the article, the rule that was ignored, and how ignoring the rule improved the article. Without such a list, the user has no way of knowing when WP:IAR could ever apply. I sure don't, and I have made over 25,000 edits, the first more than 10 years ago in June 2005. —Anomalocaris (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Clarification: I understand that WP:IAR can mean WP:Be bold, go ahead and edit and things will sort out in the end. If WP:IAR can also mean something like "Sometimes articles are actually improved by allowing changes normally prohibited by WP:MOS or other sets of rules," examples should be provided. If WP:IAR is really just WP:Be bold, this essay should say so, to remove all doubt. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Improve Illustration

The illustration suggests that you should do any idea that comes intro your head, as long at it does not contradict wikipedia policy or rules. That could go very wrong, if you just skim the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.229.73.38 (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I updated the diagram to fix that "loophole". Now checking for a good idea is the FIRST step. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 22:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The illustration does not cover the case where the rules are *incomplete* or *vague* which is different, and probably more common, than being *wrong* ... --Sethop (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

How about *no loopholes* or *very redundant*? *incomplete* or *vague* aren't more common than what's wrong, there just two more things wrong. I love the satire of the flow chart, no edit required.

Examples needed

I am re-posting and updating a comment I made on 21 December 2015 that unfortunately did not generate any interest before it was archived. Perhaps this time things will be more favorable.

I believe this essay would be enhanced by a list of examples of articles that were improved by WP:IAR, listing the article, the rule that was ignored, and how ignoring the rule improved the article. Without such a list, the user has no way of knowing when WP:IAR could ever apply. I sure don't, and I have made almost 35,000 edits, the first almost 12 years ago in June 2005. I understand that WP:IAR can mean WP:Be bold, go ahead and edit and things will sort out in the end. If WP:IAR can also mean something like "Sometimes articles are actually improved by changes normally prohibited by WP:MOS or other sets of rules," examples should be provided. If WP:IAR is really just WP:Be bold, this essay should say so, to remove all doubt. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

IAR is completely different from BOLD. IAR is rare and I can't think of any useful examples in articles, although it was invoked at Jimmy Wales to add a see also to User:Jimbo Wales to the article (diff). IAR is more popular at places like WP:ANI where normal procedures might suggest, for example, that a user should remain blocked, but circumstances suggest an unblock would be worth trying. IAR is frequently mentioned but like WP:NOTCENSORED it is rarely understood and rarely used correctly. IAR is one of those I know it when I see it things. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Johnuniq: If IAR is rarely understood and rarely used correctly, then we need a list of examples of articles that were improved by it. The problem with I know it when I see it is that other users are not able to do a Vulcan mind meld with the original writer. If you want to supply examples applying IAR to Wikipedia procedures such as blocking and unblocking, that is fine too, but I'm calling mainly for examples relating to the article space. —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge the common-sense-caveat material, and maybe move all the common-sense material to separate page

WP:NOCOMMON and WP:Common sense is not common should probably merge. Their content is largely redundant, and the stand-alone page is citing this section as its basis. For the contrarian observations, the "is not common" title makes more sense. It really isn't helpful for the present page to suggest that using common sense is a meta-policy (and it's very widely accepted as one; the average editor treats WP:COMMONSENSE as a central principle), yet then contradict this with the statement that common sense doesn't even exist. It's a much more salient point that common sense isn't really common in either sense (i.e., it's not employed as often as we'd like, and isn't universally shared). The "don't insult other editors by insisting they're not using common sense or that your subjective preference is necessarily common sense" points all logically follow from these observations. We just don't need to be redundantly making them in two pages.

However, it's worth noting that the WP:COMMON and WP:NOCOMMON principles don't apply only to IAR situations; most citations to either don't have anything to do with IAR, but more often interpretation and application of policy to particular contexts. It's not clear why this material is in an IAR-focused essay page to begin with.

So there are several options:

1. Merge WP:Common sense is not common to WP:NOCOMMON in the WP:WIARM page, and use "Common sense isn't common" as the section title.
2. Merge WP:Common sense is not common to WP:NOCOMMON in the WP:WIARM page, and use "There is no common sense" as the section title.
3. Merge WP:NOCOMMON to the WP:Common sense is not common page
4. Split WP:COMMON (i.e., WP:WIARM#Use common sense) to a separate WP:Common sense page (which it may have been originally), along with WP:NOCOMMON, and merge WP:Common sense is not common to NOCOMMON.
5. Split WP:COMMON to a separate WP:Use common sense page, and merge WP:NOCOMMON to the WP:Common sense is not common essay.
6. Do nothing.

I'd be happy with any of these results but the last, since we have no reason to have WP:NOCOMMON and WP:Common sense is not common redundantly separate. In descending order, I favor 4, 5, 2, 1, and 3.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

• Do nothing, the common sense policy is certainly a central policy (or rather, above policy), and I have no idea why closers do not take it into account when closing discussions when common sense is used as a point for one side or another. Why expand on the text which opposes that principal? I can see your good faith point in separating them, but frankly I don't trust you to merge them without an attempt to negate the COMMONSENSE language. Please win my confidence back, and give the merge language in a draft, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Are you sure that your idea..."

What should the threshold be? The flowchart gives a binary yes/no option, but what if I were to add content with a 65-70% confidence that it is a good idea, and 80-85% confidence that it improves the encyclopedia. Is that sufficient? Anothersignalman (talk) 16:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia has for many years shown a picture of danish actress Hanne Borchsenius as a profile picture of actress Lily Weiding. The original photo shows danish actor Morten Grunwald posing between Hanne Borchsenius (to the left) and Lily Weiding (right), someone framed it wrong. I have tried to correct this error, and in return I got a message from Home Lander saying that I had added incorrect information, and this would be corrected. I am so sorry that I do not know if a picture shows my mother or her friend Hanne. I have tried to upload an up-to-date picture of my mother, but I end up at this page. Best, Julie Wieth — Preceding unsigned comment added by De Vieth (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

That's my reply a few months ago end of April May Theresa Aleto (talk) 01:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Anothersignalman's original contention (or implication): that the "common sense" threshold is too high. The flowchart says that if you are not SURE that your contribution is a good idea ("by common sense") AND that it improves the encyclopedia, you should simply not go ahead with your idea. In fact, there is no further consideration; you should simply drop the idea altogether. This flies in the face of a MAJOR Wikipedia principle: BOLD. The flowchart must be overhauled or eliminated. It communicates an entirely inaccurate concept of how a potential contributor should approach Wikipedia. Holy (talk) 18:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 May 2020

Referencing: article "Letter on Resurrection"

Original author: Moses Maimonides Born 1138 and died 1204 Date written: 1195 Placed written Cairo, Egypt Source text: "The Wisdom of Maimonides, the life and writings of a Jewish Sage" Page #26 published 2008, Editor: Edward Hofman

               ISBN:978-I-59030-517-1
             " The Guide to the Perplexed" by Moses Maimonides  originally published 1190, republished 2004
              ISBN 13:978-0-7607-5757-4
              Translated from Arabic by: M., Friedlander

Moses was not Christian, he was a Jewish Physician and Philosopher

Greg Anable Ganable (talk) 03:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:40, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

Tax Assessor-Collector: Marcus A. Peña (R) – first elected in 2012

Tax Assessor-Collector: Kim Rinn (R) – first elected in 2016 Kgrinn (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the wording :(

Hello dear,

I might of found a problem in the "Use common sense" section; readers might not know the proverbial meaning of "loss of perspective". 160.32.212.38 (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)