Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" really means

IAR has no more to do with the admin, editor relationship than it does with the relationship between two editors or two admins. This really is nothing to do with what IAR means. _{(1 == 2)}^Until 03:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It does, because the mob and the admins are what define and enforce the rules through digital violence. The idea that "rules should be broken," only seems to apply in theoretical situations where policy pages that can't be changed. I.E., if a policy page says, "VANDALIZE JIMBO'S USER PAGE, LOL!" you don't ignore that rule. You change it.

On the other hand, let's theoretically say that a policy page says, "VANDALIZE JIMBO'S USER PAGE," and it consistently stays that way and your attempts to change it are unsuccessful -- that's when WP:IAR kicks in.

If rules can be changed, there's no reason for them to be ignored. If rules can't be changed because of mismanagement or silly mobs (social clusters), that is when WP:IAR applies.

If am wrong, then when does WP:IAR apply? Could you give a specific hypothetical situation? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Easily. IAR applies when you're a new editor, you don't know the rules, and you make an improvement without caring what the rules are. Then you're ignoring them, and ignoring them well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

So, basically, WP:IAR comes down to: "It's OK to be ignorant."

Ignore and ignorance have the same Latin root, GTBacchus, so that's a clever rhetorical argument you have there, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to follow logically. Why should we write a page on policy for newbies, telling them that they don't need to read pages on policy? And what's the point in even writing pages on policy if we don't expect anybody to read them? Furthermore, don't you see how making willful ignorance of policy paradoxically an official policy might harm Wikipedia?

Willful ignorance is an aspect of human nature. It's not something we need to remind anybody about, so your claim seems totally absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Totally absurd, huh? First of all, I didn't say that my example was all that IAR means. If you want a more thorough explanation, see WP:WIARM. Answering your questions: "Why should we write a page on policy for newbies telling them that they don't need to read pages on policy?" I didn't quite say that. I said that, in order to make an improvement, you don't need to know the rules. If you're brought up short by someone reverting your edit, and if someone points you to a page, you'd do well to read it, so that you can communicate with that person in an informed context. "What's the point in even writing pages on policy if we don't expect people to read them?" I didn't say that. We write policy pages to document our best practices - that doesn't make reading them a prerequisite for editing. However, when you get into some kind of dispute, it's a very Good Idea to investigate previous consensus, as documented on policy pages. Your last question is a canard, because I'm not suggesting making willful ignorance into a policy. You still have not demonstrated any actual concrete harm resulting from any aspect of IAR. I've asked so many times - why won't you produce evidence, other than saying, "it logically must be harmful"? Show me the harm.

Most of your argument above is based on the fallacy that our rules compose a formal system. You suggested at WT:IAR that most people (99% you suggested) think of Wikipedia as a formal system of rules. I invited you to set up a poll or survey on that point; are you going to do it? You'll find out that you're wrong, and that most people here "get" IAR better than you think. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Straw_poll. This has been kept up since 2003 or so, iirc. It would be interesting to draw a graph to show the balance of this poll over time. Zenwhat: you've got your statistics for once. Have fun!  ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, bulleted points:

• If your example was poor, then think of another example besides newbie ignorance. Is the example in this essay correct?
• As it stands now, WP:IAR is unconditional. You appear to disagree with the policy by believing that there have to be set conditions for the policy to apply, including some degree of capitulation to the bureaucratic, majoritarian mob, which is expressed in WP:WIARM.

About this:

If you're brought up short by someone reverting your edit, and if someone points you to a page, you'd do well to read it

That is in direct contradiction with this:

You are not required to learn the rules before contributing.

Based on your above statements, from your POV, that last statement should more accurately read:

You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. But you should, because if you don't, there's a good chance somebody will come by and beat you over the head either because you were, in fact, ignorant of policy and\or an unfortunately burgeoning Wikipedian bureaucracy.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 20:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, it can be read as "Feel free to just try something in your own random way. At some point someone might come along and enlighten you as to the best (known) practices to do that thing. If you are a wise person, you may wish to internalize those practices.". Something like that, but tidied. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, you still seem to think I'm saying something other than what I'm saying. On your first bulleted point: I didn't say it was a "poor" example; I said it didn't represent the totality of what IAR means. It was a necessarily incomplete example, not a poor one.

Second bullet point, I don't know what you're talking about with "set conditions for the policy to apply". I think you think I'm making statements about a formal system. I'm not. Stop trying to figure out what formal statement I'm making, as I'm not making one.

Next, there is no contradiction between "If someone points you to a page, you'd do well to read it" and "You are not required to learn the rules before contributing". Note the preposition: "before". At first, you just do what seems best. When someone talks to you, of course you listen and consider what they say. Why wouldn't you? You're not required to do anything at that point, but failing to be courteous will not lead you anywhere good, just as in the rest of life. That's not a rule of the Wiki; it's just life.

I absolutely disagree with your bit about "someone will come by and beat you over the head". What's so unthinkable about someone courteously pointing out that there's something you didn't know about. Do you beat people over the head, for any reason, ever? Why?

Let me be very clear: You are not required to learn any rules before contributing. Once you have contributed, if someone points out something you could have done better, then it's smart, courteous, and helpful to listen. You can discuss it with them, and figure out what's best. If that fails, ask more people, and help build consensus. Don't beat anyone over the head at any point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Zenwhat, a few quick points:

Why do you insist on calling the community, or part of it, the mob? It seems like a pejorative description used to describe a certain group of users who just disagree with you. Also, accusing admins of "digital violence" (I assume you mean the B-P-D trio) when they are trying to enforce established policy? These terms are not helpful in this discussion.

In terms of use of IAR in articles, here are common examples: (1) inserting unsourced and unverified, yet uncontroversial information to articles; and (2) ignoring MOS guidelines to improve an article's readability. I assume this is what GTBacchus meant, in that they are most commonly made by newbies (although some experienced editors still do it, even me :) Does this help Wikipedia? It depends on the situation, but it's sometimes accepted by others despite policies and guidelines advising against it.

Now, in terms on interacting with editors and helping to run the project, in my view, WP:IAR serves sort-of like an emergency fire axe or handbrake, depending on the situation. Yes, we have a lot of policies, guidelines, and essays, but they were created either to solve past problems or avoid future ones between users, all for the good of the project. We can change, modify, delete, or ignore them to continue such good, but not to advance one's personal positions and views of what we want Wikipedia to be. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

On terminology, perhaps Zenwhat means the cabal and meatball:PowerAnswer respectively? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The community is not the mob. I simply think that the two should be distinguished, though they usually aren't. "Community" is often personified as a pseudo-democracy\bureaucracy, but this is inappropriate. What is the distinction?

• The community: The group of rational, individual editors contributing to Wikipedia in good faith.
• The mob: The horde of irrational, clusters of editors who are utterly incapable of making constructive contributions to Wikipedia because they are either incapable of restraining their extreme biases or even consciously know that they're editing Wikipedia in bad faith. They are often successful, however, because of collective strength. See What is a troll?, Fancruft, The plague, and Rouge admin.

Only the former group counts as part of WP:CONSENSUS. The latter group should be beaten down digitally through reverts and administrative actions, even if they are a democratic majority saying, "But.. but.. we have consensus!! We have the consensus!!"

I refer to reverts and administrative actions as digital violence, because that's what they are.

IRL, I am me. On Wikipedia, I am the digital person, "Zenwhat." You don't know me as me. You know me as Zenwhat.

We can think of Wikipedia as a digital library where anybody can add, remove, or edit books (with each book being an "article").

When somebody makes a revert, that's the digital equivalent of somebody snatching the book out of your hand and removing your change, a subtle form of violence. When an administrator blocks somebody, that's the equivalent of time-out for children or temporary imprisonment, since the digital person, Zenwhat, still exists, but he no longer has the same previous freedom for X amount of time. When an administrator bans somebody, that's the equivalent of exile, life without parole, and\or capital punishment, because the digital person, Zenwhat, has ceased to be and is no more.

The lack of people grasping this idea has led people to misunderstand the distinction between thoughtful, meaningful "collaboration" and what could be called "clobberation," (see clobber) whereby a bureaucratic collective overwhelms the rational, thoughtful individual editor(s) in the name of a false compromise and a fallacious appeal to the middle-ground.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Kim, also it isn't "your random way." It's the right way.

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia

Notice how it's not random at all. The only condition for WP:IAR to be invoked is if, "You want to do something to help Wikipedia, but somebody or something stands in your way." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Not "somebody or something". A rule. A person with an argument is not a rule, and you may not civilly ignore them. You may not ignore civility (as opposed to dubya-pee-civil, which you may ignore) and last long in civil society. Ignore rules, but respect human beings. By what magic do you think ignoring rules enables you to defy others? How is that supposed to work? Who is the arbiter of whether or not you get away with that? You? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, WP:CIVILITY is a rule. The idea, "You should listen to people with arguments," is a rule. And if following those rules hurt Wikipedia, they should be ignored. This is not a blanket assertion that WP:IAR gives every person the right to make whatever edits they want, without consequence. It is a blanket assertion that thoughtful, rational, objective, intelligent editors have the right to make edits they want, if they think critically about what they're doing and assume responsibility for their actions. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And who gets to decide who is a "thoughtful, rational, objective and intelligent editor"? You?

As for what you say about civility, I'll agree that "dubya-pee-CIVIL" is a rule. I've never read it; what's the point? Civility itself, on the other hand, is a good idea that I've given a lot of thought to. The fact that you will be more successful working on a collaborative project if you're civil and respectful is not a rule; it is a simple observation.

Just because you see human interactions in terms of rules, doesn't mean they really are that way. If you think that civility or consensus - the real things, not the pages - can be effectively ignored, or that other people can be effectively ignored, then I'd like to see a shred of evidence of that. Who is supposed to fly in and make you win the argument against the mob because you're "thoughtful, rational, objective and intelliegent", huh? Meanwhile, I'd like to see a shred of evidence that there's anything wrong with the way IAR is worded, or that your interpretation of IAR has any community support. You've provided evidence for nothing, and continue to ignore the examples I've supplied of IAR in action. I'm beginning to think you have no evidence to back up your theory. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll get just about as far ignoring civility and consensus as you will ignoring the Law of Gravity, as that would be just as true if IAR had been written down before F=Gm₁m₂/d². Why on Earth would a "rational, thoughtful, objective, intelligent person" try to steamroll other people, and what would be their practical recourse when the world pushed back? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's probably true, GTBacchus, which is why I'm not saying it's a good idea to do that -- just that it's possible. Giving Mao the finger and\or attempting to overthrow him during the rise of Communism in China would've been a good thing. You probably would've been sent to a labor camp, tortured, and possibly murdered, but still, it would've been a good thing.

A rational, thoughtful, objective, intelligent person would "steamroll" other people if they are irrational, thoughtless, POV-pushing, idiotic trolls and vandals or those who support them, even in good faith (which is often unfortunate). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And how is that supposed to work, practically? Who is going to call the dispute in favor of the rational person over the idiots? -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Anybody. Are you actually suggesting "existing policy" should overrule "rational argument" for pragmatic reasons? How is that even pragmatic? You just end up with a bunch of retarded admins making irrational assertions and then beating down intelligent editors when they make bold, constructive edits. The credibility and integrity of Wikipedia should not be compromised for the sake of WP:Wikilove. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an answer to the question. According to your model, the person who is right wins, whether or not he manages to convince a consensus of others. There are just as many people - or more - calling the dispute against you as for you. Then what do you do? If you keep forcing the issue, trying to "steamroll" opposition, then you find yourself blocked. Then what do you do? Where do you get the power to steamroll others?

You ask whether I'm suggesting that "existing policy" should overrule "rational argument", which is pretty much the opposite of what I'm suggesting. I'm pointing out that, in order to get that boulder moved, you're going to have to convince people to move it. That's all. Pragmatically, what do you do when you're unable to steamroll the opposition? The other guys are a mob of idiots; they won't listen. So, what's your recourse? You're providing no answers other than "anybody". What if "anybody" isn't forthcoming?

As for the retarded admins making irrational assertions and beating down intelligent editors, show me one example. You know what happens to irrational admins? They get de-sysopped. You know why? Because consensus demands it. (No, not WP:CONSENSUS. Actual humans, with volition.)

The fact is, consensus makes the right choices, in the long run. The only power is rational argument, and rational arguments, when brought to the light, become consensus. If you ignore a rule, and it turns out you're right, then you've just raised the issue. It remains to convince people that you really are right, because there's likely to be resistance, the more so the more significant the change. If you can't convince a consensus, then it's assumed you're wrong. It is susceptible to rule of the mob to an extent, although IAR helps limit that damage.

The necessity for civility and convincing people of things is a very unavoidable reality on a wiki (as in most contexts in life). If you don't believe that those strategies are effective, then you don't believe that Wikipedia can work, because there is no alternative. If you think you can just do things that a consensus opposes, then you're suggesting the impossible. That's not a responsible way to pursue your goal. Getting yourself killed for giving Mao the finger when you could instead join an underground network, or leave the country to help raise international awareness, or anything productive would not have been a good thing; it would have been a damn foolish waste of your possibly productive life. Tilting at windmills is not good practice.

If you simply wish to claim that a quixotic and unexplained action in the face of massive opposition is "justified" in some abstract way by IAR, whether or not the person is clever enough to win support for their idea by engaging in good faith discussion... then I'd ask, what's the point? What good is being "justified" when you can't get your edit made? Practical necessity counts as necessity. IAR doesn't change the fact that there are effective and ineffective ways to get things done, and the effective ways happen to converge with our policies on civility and consensus (not the pages, but the ideas behind them - don't read the pages). If you think that a person can be effective by identifying others as trolls and treating them accordingly, then you've got another thing coming. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)