Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) at 21:59, 8 November 2005 (→Michael Snow's revision: Purpose of the statement...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by TenOfAllTrades in topic Michael Snow's revision

Archives

Supporters

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion
  1. WojPob
  2. Jimbo Wales
  3. AyeSpy
  4. OprgaG,
  5. Invictus
  6. Koyaanis Qatsi,
  7. Pinkunicorn
  8. sjc
  9. Mike Dill
  10. Taw
  11. GWO
  12. NetEsq
  13. Anthère
  14. Lir
  15. Rotem Dan -- I think encouraging any constructive contributers is fine (as opposed to vandals and trolls), these folks may learn the do's and dont's in the hard way, but possibly lead the 'pedia into new directions..
  16. TheOmnilord -- In a very tongue in cheek way.
  17. ☮ Eclecticology Rigidly opposing rigidity.
  18. Frecklefoot -- I didn't read all of the 'pedia's rule before contributing. When I needed to know a rule pertaining to something specific, I looked it up.
  19. Olathe -- I don't like bureaucracy, but I won't go so far as to start unnecessary wars. I can always undo my changes later if necessary.
  20. Fantasy
  21. Wikinator
  22. [[User:Sverdrup|✏ SverdrupSverdrup]]
  23. 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) But Follow with discretion and occasionally ignore this rule. 172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  24. Eequor - better to be constructively wrong than destructively right.
  25. Guanaco 16:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  26. Snowspinner 05:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This rule is the essence of soft securty vs hard security.
  27. The Cunctator 05:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think I'm going to support it again.
  28. —siroχo 13:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) within reason. Policy isn't meant to be absolute, but to aid the development of the encyclopedia.
  29. CheeseDreams
  30. Lst27 (talk) 03:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  31. Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) — Either I don't understand this rule, or people who object to this rule don't understand it. No editor has to know or follow the rules, because others will clean up after them, stop them, or do whatever else they have to do. It's certainly more polite to follow the rules, but in the end what we need is raw material we can polish into good content. Deco 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  32. Amgine
  33. Elian this rule is essential to maintain the openess of Wikipedia for goodwilling new contributors (see also de:Benutzer:Elian/Regeln in german)
  34. Beta_M. Yes, i was waiting for the rule like that. Otherwise you end up with "good old boy network" where only people who already know what they are doing are welcome to endit anything. Beta_M talk, |contrib (Ë-Mail)
  35. Gubbubu 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) some editors like to use Wikipedia policies for killing other's oppinions. I'm fed up with them. Gubbubu
  36. Mindspillage (spill yours?)
  37. Dan100
  38. JondelI Jondel, do hereby pledge my support and strict obedience to this particular rule in law and spirit and to the best of my abilities. And please don't take this seriously.
  39. Kim Bruning 10:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I thought I'd already supported this!
  40. Dralwik 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) AMEN.
  41. Wgfinley 19:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  42. User-Name 22:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC) A little creativity never hurt anyone.Reply
  43. Never realized there was voting on this. older≠wiser 02:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
  44. Okay, I'll support now. As long as people are happy and editing. Radiant_* 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  45. human if this is the only rule followed, vandals won't know what rules to break. I think that as WP evolves into a better and better resource, the barrier to newcomers adding information will seem higher - hence referrals to this rule "invite them in" in a friendly way.
  46. Sarge Baldy 08:16, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
  47. malathion
  48. Me 04:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
  49. Shackleton 20:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC) - Seriously, some rules aren't even worth fighting for and exist solely for the sake of standardization, however arbitrary.Reply
  50. Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC) - I can't believe I've neglected doing this for so long. Kelly Martin 14:10, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  51. zachol It could be rephrased, but the general idea (don't feel as if you have to follow the rules perfectly) should still stand. zachol 06:59, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  52. Acetic Acid It comes in handy, as long as you don't abuse or misinterpret it. 10:04, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  53. Egg 13:01, August 26, 2005 (UTC) - This rule doesn't say "Wikipedia is anarchy" and it doesn't invalidate all the other considerable rules. I comprehend it as: Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.
  54. Mysidia 06:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Rules are often right, but often wrong too. Decent practice is more important, and the letter of rules should be ignored sometimes in favor of respecting the desire of the community -- we shouldn't need Wikilawyers, and we needn't fear making vandalism legitimate by retaining IAR.Reply
  55. —MESSEDROCKER (talk) 22:38, September 10, 2005 (UTC) - I like the whole concept of how rules shouldn't get in your way, though calling it "Ignore all rules" may give people the wrong impression
  56. --Celestianpower hab 23:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  57. Encourages independent thought and innovation, saves wikipedia from choking under the weight of bureaucracy. Self-correcting: IAR cannot successfully be used against consensus. --Tony SidawayTalk 08:22, 21 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  58. Those who oppose this idea out of fear of it being abused should rethink their position. It's better to be opposed to abusive editors than to be opposed to IAR. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Editing works by consensus, so why not come right out and say that application of rules work by consensus also? It sort of already does, whether we want it to or not. Friday (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  59. David Gerard 13:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  60. I'm of the opinion that, given enough transparency, communication, and consensus enabling tools, the best content is created through peer proofing, not through administrative content control. --Zephram Stark 17:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC) I do not support a version that lets administrators use the IAR as an excuse to make up whatever rule they want. --Zephram Stark 17:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Opponents

Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments9 people in discussion
  1. tbc
  2. AxelBoldt -- deliberately breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad.
  3. Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.//
  4. David
  5. Larry Sanger (User has left the project)
  6. Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)
  7. Noldoaran (Talk)
  8. Lethe 15:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) -- (if you support "ignore all rules", shouldn't you be opposed to "ban repeat vandals"?)
  9. BadSanta -- The proponents are NOT serious. Anarchy gives rise to chaos. Without ANY enforced rules, Wikipedia would experience rampant destruction. Freedom still exists abundantly (except to break rules).
  10. SimonP 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC), with the three revert rule, and other regulations, users will quickly be banned if they decide to ignore official policies.
    Comment 3RR can be ignored in the case of vandalism. Acetic Acid 10:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  11. I would like to rephrase to: If all the rules on Wikipedia make you confused or depressed, ignore them and use your indwelling common sense and decency instead. dab (ᛏ) 10:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  12. In favour of flexibility and bending/breaking the odd rule/guideline, but not in favour of anarchy (page name, "Ignore all rules"). zoney ♣ talk 20:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  13. тəzєті I am in favor for users that are new ignoring Wikipedia's markup and other rules such as this and users breaking small rules is not a problem, however telling people to ignore every rule as a wikipedia policy is encouraging vandalists and all rulebreakers.
  14. The rule was formulated in the early days of Wikipedia to attract developers (see Larry Sanger quote below). Times have changed. We have a lot of developers and we do need the rules if we want them to be able to work together. (Of course, small rules can be ignored.) nyenyec ☎ 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  15. This is silly, and guaranteed to be followed in the worst way by the ignorant. — Xiong熊talk* 11:29, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
    • I still think the proposal is silly, but I do have to add how much I detest unnecessary rules. — Xiong熊talk* 08:36, 2005 August 6 (UTC)
  16. This is both silly and dangerous. Within the past 24 hrs this was quoted to me as a reason for an admin to ignore a clear policy restriction on use of admin powers. This should be significantly qualified or else deleted. DES 15:19, 20 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
  17. You've gotta be kidding me. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 12:55, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Makes no sense. If rules make you nervous and depressed, grow up already, deal with the real world, go make your own blog or something and leave large projects like this the heck alone. DreamGuy 03:09, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  19. Howabout1 Talk to me! 14:16, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
  20. This is just a reason anyone can use to do any kind of vandalism. Elfguy 17:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
  21. As explained below. --SPUI (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  22. I've seen people suggest that this trumps WP:NOT too many times. It's become a liability. Besides, the only sentence in it I see a real positive contribution from is "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden–including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'–will attract censure," although I'd like to see that rephrased to "Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden-including the practice of 'rules-lawyering'-are expressly forbidden." The Literate Engineer 14:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
  23. Too often this is an excuse for unilateralism. More than one administrator has justified their own actions with IAR, and it encourages sysops to act outside of policy or consensus; in short, to provide a preception of abuse of power.--Scimitar parley 21:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  24. This "policy" can be construed in two ways: one, in which it is self-contradictory and self-undermining (and thus harmless, but useless); and another, in which it is tremendously destructive. There is no good reason for it. --FOo 01:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  25. Strongly opposed. The one-paragraph version was good advice for newbies to not sweat all the Wikipedia rules because there would always be someone who would come along and fix any mistakes made and help them them to become better Wikipedia editors. Somehow this page morphed into an excuse for experienced editors, administrators, and even arbitrators to blatantly break rules, make drastic changes, and ignore consensus. Worse yet, the current much longer version is a mess. The page should be reverted back to the one-paragraph version. BlankVerse ∅ 08:52, 29 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  26. Strongly opposed Those inclined to use common sense don't need this policy. This page is mostly cited by trolls. Borisblue 04:25, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
  27. Tεxτurε 21:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Comments

I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. --User:Jimbo Wales

Additional previous comments may be found in the archive.

Michael Snow's revision

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

I really like this latest revision; tightened it up a lot and didn't lose anything important. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Concur :-) Kim Bruning 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, guys. One of the virtues of this page is its simplicity, so I thought I'd condense it back to a more minimalist version. Personally, I would be fine with just the one paragraph, but didn't want to offend people by completely discarding the philosophical observations. Also, I toned down some of the language. When discussing a rule like this, you can only be dogmatic if your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek. --Michael Snow 06:23, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I did some rearranging of my own, and restored what I consider to be the most important sentence in David Gerard's version -- "Remember - ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia. " I say that this is the most important sentence because Ignore All Rules is (A) Very badly named, and (B) as a result, very badly misunderstood, which (C) causes it to be misapplied quite often. While I still think this is a very badly mistitled page, I think the current version at least communicates the right idea. →Raul654 06:49, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

The statement I can accept, but the arrangement of things here does have to be very carefully considered. That nearly left us with a sequence of sentences from which one could reasonably conclude that the purpose that justifies "Ignoring all rules" is "cutting through bureaucracy and red tape" rather than "to make the encyclopedia better". It's exactly this kind of ambiguity that leads to misapplication of the principle. Bureaucracy and red tape are undesirable in many instances, but cutting through them just for the sake of the exercise is not a virtue. --Michael Snow 07:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Good point - I hadn't thought of that. Your version is quite good. →Raul654 07:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I guess you're here to create policy, huh Mike? Turn the article from "ignore all rules if you use common sense" to "do whatever an administrator tells you because he can make up whatever rule he wants?" --Zephram Stark 17:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm not even sure what you're going on about. The principle here applies to all editors, regardless of whether they are administrators or not. It's not specifically tied to administrators, and being an administrator does not put people in a position of telling others what to do. --Michael Snow 18:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
"Some obnoxious behavior may lead to negative consequences, even though the behavior is not expressly forbidden by rule." This sentence gives administrators a license to make up or enforce any rule they want. Even without that sentence, administrators have tried to cite the IAR as an excuse to control content. They are promptly slapped down by others on on the WikiEN-I. The IAR is a tool of freedom for those who can handle it, not a weapon of oppression for corrupt administrators. --Zephram Stark 21:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
You claim: This sentence gives administrators a license to make up or enforce any rule they want. Wrong, that's a perfect example of the problem with selective interpretation of what the page says. In its totality, and as the discussion above shows, the principle being discussed can only be invoked "if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." This is nowhere near allowing people to make up anything they want. --Michael Snow 21:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
"if this is necessary to make the encyclopedia better." You do realize that every admin invoking this rule to enforce his own made-up rules will say they are doing it to make the encyclopedia better. So when are you saying it would not be allowed? - Tεxτurε 21:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Administrators already have a license to block editors for highly obnoxious behaviour; it is explicitly enshrined in the blocking policy (see the 'Disruption' and 'Blocks without policy basis' sections). Further, 'negative consequences' doesn't necessarily mean blocking or administrative action of any kind. If you're being a dick–even a dick who remains within the strict confines of policy–you should expect criticism and possible censure from the rest of the Wikipedia community. The point of the section quoted isn't to give admins carte blanche–and I have difficult seeing how it could be read that way–but rather to indicate that our policies are necessarily evolving and flexible, and don't necessarily anticipate every contingency. The idea is to discourage the incredibly annoying and unproductive practice of 'rules lawyering', and to emphasize the importance of our goal–building an encyclopedia–over policy minutiae. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules&oldid=27760879"