Wikipedia talk:What "Ignore all rules" really means

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)