Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming

message: There is a strong contingent who's opinion about this page can be boiled down to "I like the short version of WP:IAR as it exists now and any longer version is wrong".  I respect your opinion, but as you can see here, it is already well represented.  Repeating that same opinion different ways adds nothing to this discussion. Those who are working on this page are doing so, in order to not disrupt the main IAR page with their brainstorming.  Please show them the same courtesy. -- Isogolem 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a sweet thought, but the way these things tend to actually work out is that objectors are told "well you should have participated." So, er, too bad - David Gerard 10:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah.  Hmmm... Okay.  ...  ... Erm...  Well, then, I guess... Nope, I'm stumped.  :)   The point of a brainstorm is to come up with a pile of new ideas, then sift them, and bring back a few ideas for wider discussion.  It seems obvious (to idealistic old me) that the existing page would be one of the options.  "Which do you most like: a, b, c, d, or e - none of the above, leave it as it is."  Oh, well. -- Isogolem 23:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Version 

message: I didn't even read this, and I'm a wikipedia fanatic. I read a few sentences and it just wiped off me, in contrast to the current IAR, which is concice and gets the point across. Really, this is just stupid. .* 13:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why we have the "nutshell" version up there.  That contains the short/sweet version, while we now have room to elaborate.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing to elaborate on. --PopUpPirate 16:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Nothing to elaborate? Current version of IAR just confuses the people it intends to guide. Check the link to the interpret essay, it's basically what it's trying to do. 212.10.217.122 11:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP! 

message: I don't have a strong feeling about the wording of the policy itself, but I think it is very important that the page explains the reason for the policy.  To simply state that it has a 'deep, subtle meaning' is not good enough.  That 'deep, subtle meaning' should be explained in a way that becomes 'clear and meaningful'.  Similarly it is no good just saying that the rule has a 'long tradition'.  Instead explain the history and reasons for the rule.  I don't think it's good enough for one of our core rules to be a simple bald statement with no explanation of why it is a rule and why it is important. --HappyDog 01:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Deep and subtle meaning" was a bit cryptic, wasn't it. 192.75.48.150 13:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I like this suggestion.  There are plentiful explanations of the history and significance of IAR on certain pages in the Wikipedia talk: namespace, such as Wikipedia talk:Process is important.  Maybe some of those could be collected and added to the page, maybe in one of those show/hide navboxes or something, to keep people happy who like for the page to be short and sweet. -GTBacchus(talk) 13:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background is required 

message: Proposal one is clearly completely different from, and in opposition to, what IAR has always meant.  Given that Jimbo himself has stepped in and declared IAR to be official policy, attempting to undo it now is simply not going to happen. I suggest removing it from the brainstorming article, it is pointless having it there.  --Xyzzyplugh 13:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the merge or the new text?  Please refactor this section as needed. -- Isogolem 15:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Might as well give up on proposal one

message: "Use of this policy should be initiated by a group of editors, for when the policy is invoked by a single editor, it will usually be seen as a violation of WP:POINT". This is a complete reversal of what IAR has always meant, and it's a stealth attempt to try to remove the policy, and considering that Jimbo just declared IAR as being official policy a month ago, it's doomed to failure.  Rewriting IAR to give an explanation of the policy might be reasonable, rewriting it to reverse its meaning is certainly not.  --Xyzzyplugh 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now?  -- Isogolem 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Attempted Reversal of IAR?

message: The entire current brainstorming few paragraphs does not have a flow to it. It starts off trying to describe Nirvana/Heaven... etc... Then it suddenly jerks to the fact that rules take ages to learn, then it goes to the fact that we proclaim not to be a bureaucracy, even given the number of policy pages and stuff we have. 
Seriously though, a huge explanation is not what is required on a page like this. A person who is nervous and feeling like not editing wikipedia does not need a rant, they need a short easy to understand piece of ecouragement. Wikipedia is a community as an ends to building the best encyclopedia ever, its that simple. A hiccup along the way because this policy may get abused by an experienced vandal means nothing at all. Just leave it the way it is and direct serial vandals to WP:DICK or WP:ENC instead. This pages purpose is utterly destroyed by too many words. Ansell 10:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, aside from not liking the current version, you really don't like the idea of a longer version of IAR.  Okay.  -- Isogolem 05:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't. Sorry for taking so long to get to the point! :) Ansell 09:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of flow/point 

message: The problem with this policy is that the idea of what it means to "improve" Wikipedia is inherently subjective. We create and maintain rules because people can and do intelligently disagree about things, and we need a way of resolving those disagreements. In other words, this policy is fine -- except in the abscence of concensus.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vectro (talk • contribs) .
<SMALL>(Note: This message was originally posted to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules/Brainstorming.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, suggestions on what to say instead?  -- Isogolem 02:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something like "If there is a consensus that a rule is inhibiting the encyclopedia, ignore it." Short and to the point is fine, but anything that doesn't involve consensus leaves too many holes to wriggle through. Such as declaring consensus itself inhibitory. -Amarkov babble 04:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Inhibiting" doesn't seem any clearer to me... -- Isogolem 22:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[POV]] 

message: Okay, you don't have to like the idea of changing IAR, but that is what this page is about.  If you're going to edit, please make a good faith effort to be constructive, both in discussion and on the brainstorming page itself.  This kind of behavior is not apppropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isogolem (talk • contribs) 02:25, October 2, 2006 (UTC)
:Agreed.  The spirit of a "brainstorm" pretty much involves generating new ideas, and throwing a lot of stuff on the table, without taking anything off the table, or criticizing ideas that others are throwing out.  That comes later.  A brainstorm is for generating ideas that may or may not lead anywhere; after the brainstorm is when you trim the list down. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my brainstorm of it, that's all.  It was a good faith effort to be constructive, as such it was imo appropriate. Thanks! --PopUpPirate 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Be constructive

message: There are suggested reasons why IAR is policy there. Not that I'm suggesting importing them to this page - David Gerard 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to the "relatives" section above.  -- Isogolem 23:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:PRO]]

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Straw_poll#Neutral. Proposal that I support:
Ignore A RuleRules can't anticipate every possibility.  If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore it, but be prepared to explain why.  If you feel that it is likely to be ignored again for the same reason, work to change the rule. 
Harald88 15:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good idea. I support it. -Amarkov blahedits 15:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal based on Poll page 

message: There have been no siginificant revisions to this "brainstorming" page in over a month.  If you support this, speak up, make some attempts at revsions or it goes on the trash heap. -- Isogolem 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look one line up. Harald88 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Dead Dead