Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules/Archive 4

message: One can justify any POV edit with this, no matter how many times it's been reverted. Surely some appeal to consensus is appropriate here, just like there was? Bear in mind that in a typical edit war, both sides think they are "improving Wikipedia's quality".
I know you all love the simplicity and the bracing "spirit of Wikipedia" feeling you get when reading this as a single sentence. But as written, it's bad advice. —Ashley Y 06:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it does need something.  In the somewhat-romantic-sounding way that this reads, it should end with something like, "And consensus will prevail in the end."  SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I am not correct this is the (or one of the) oldest "rule" in the book, am i wrong? Which basically means the whole WP:3RR thing gets trumped in favour of the anarchy that started up this project. Not to be too cynical of course! :) Ansell 06:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Both sides in an edit war may think they're right, but both should realise that having an edit war self-evidently doesn't improve Wikipedia's quality. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 08:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not at all self-evident, as responsibility for the edit war can easily be placed on the other person, who keeps reverting "my improving edits". Your "should realise" part is the caveat to this rule that would be better stated explicitly. —Ashley Y 08:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. Haukur 11:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Deskana, you know exactly where this page stands. Noone can justify their actions with this page - It is not a rule, or a guideline, or anything that someone can use as a defence of any sort. SECProto 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I really think it is better advice without saying "only if people agree with you". This hurts a central point in the vain hopes that certain clueless people will thereby be prevented from doing clueless things -- as I say, it will probably not help them, for similar reasons that the original page wouldn't. Incidentally, if we really were to take things that literally, then, it was obvious that lots of people do not agree with your addition, therefore, according to your addition, you shouldn't have re-added it. Obviously that can't be right. 192.75.48.150 17:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "central point" is actually bad advice left unqualified. We're not trying to prevent people doing clueless things, only refraining from encouraging them to do so. —Ashley Y 19:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if I accept, for the sake of argument, that this whole page really is pointless to begin with, as we seem to be implying, even then, I'm not sure we've even accomplished what you think, because now people have even more reason to beat other people over the head with their favourite notion of "consensus", which is far more often abused a word in edit wars than this page ever was, so I trust you won't mind that I reverted your change to, shall we say, the consensus version, and let us conclude this run-on sentence with a hymn. AND DID THOSE RUUULES! IN ANCIENT TIIIIME! -Dan 192.75.48.150 20:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your use of "consensus version" seems to be an example of that abuse, apparently? I'm not seeing a consensus emerge yet. —Ashley Y 23:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean?! Look at the straw poll!! We have nearly 2:1 working consensus on this point!!! Stop messing with the consensus version... no, you're exactly right, and in fact, it seems to me that the phrase "consensus version" in particular is almost always an example of this sort of abuse, though perhaps my experience is unusual. 192.75.48.150 15:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  License to edit war 

message: Would anyone be averse to archiving this talk page?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored sections with stuff less than a week old. I wouldn't mind archiving the straw poll, even though there's an appealing irony to it, in a sick and twisted way... 192.75.48.150 14:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving talk page 

message: The spirit behind this guideline is good, but as written it seems to encourage people to do whatever they want.
We want people to ignore the rules --- but without imposing their will on others. 
I think we need to add something like "Ignore the rules -- but remember that Wikipedia is the joint project of many other people, who have ideas about how it should be, ideas which may be different from yours. Don't ignore other people." Bayle Shanks 01:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this would be better advice to give. However, a number of people prefer the text as concise as possible, because they feel more inspired by it that way. —Ashley Y 01:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We could link to WP:DICK or something instead. 192.75.48.150 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We already do link to WP:DICK in the "See also" section.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Great way to put it Kim :) -- Laura S | talk to me 19:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Ignore the rules ⇔ the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality." --HantaVirus 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignore the rules -- but not other people 

message: Looks like people are constructively editing the graffitibox. Even so, edit summaries can only be so long... care to discuss here? :-)
I took out the "advice" part because imo ignore all rules is a kind of law of wikis. It tries to describe the following reality:
The software and the community act as a safety fence. So as long as you're acting in good faith, aren't a dick, and don't purposely violate NPOV, you can basically go wild, and you'll hardly ever screw up so badly that a couple of minor corrections to your edit can't fix it. (Or at worst, if you make a really big howler, people can just revert and then put back what you actually *meant* to say ;-) ).  [1]
The levels of support and oppose at the top of the page seem to contradict my view however. Perhaps people feel that the wiki does not sufficiently act as a safety fence? I'm unsure. 
Could some people who would like to use "advice" please explain their reasoning?   Separately, it'd be interesting to hear more detailed oppose reasons, and to discuss them.
:I'm not sure about that poll. I mean, look at the time scale involved. I think recent votes are fairly evenly split, so perhaps the real percentage is about 55% of straw pollees in favour. On the other hand, this gets cited a lot as if it were policy by many people who have not voted above, and it is rare to see any objection. (I have never seen one. Granted, I don't hang around with admins. See below. section referred to was removed --me 02:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind the "advice" tag so much, because I think I have always cited this as advice -- not to justify any particular action (my own or another's). On the other hand, I don't mind seeing it removed either. 192.75.48.150 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Advice" is the simplest description of what this is. It's not a rule. It's not a guideline, apparently. What is it? It's advice. —Ashley Y 07:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: graffitibox

message: I like the way Paul Halmos put it in his autobiography: Don't break the rules until you find out what they are. Michael Hardy 21:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Paul Halmos on ignoring all rules

message: JA: I know that you mean that in the least binding of all possible ways … Jon Awbrey 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you talking about my edit summary, I meant the merge discussion I'd intended to start was stopped because apparently it was the same discussion that's been had before.  Only it's buried in the archives and change history, so I didn't know that before attempting it. If there's any talk page that deserves a summary at the top it is this one, what's been tried what has been suggested, what the outcome was.  Blarg.  As for the discussion page in general - no, I'm sure the cycle will continue. -- Isogolem 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closure?

message: I'm sure that "Policy in a nutshell" is the wrong thing, but please don't revert yet.
A one line article in wikipedia, especially following that policy box looks wrong.  It doesn't need to be "in a nutshell" but could we put in a box or at least center it or something?  I'd do this, but I don't know how yet.  ...
Okay, there it is.  Thoughts? -- Isogolem 06:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks wrong to me, I must say.  (On layout grounds, that is, setting aside the "wrongness" of the content.)  Going straight from infobox, to another infobox, to "see also" makes me wonder, "where's the actual policy"?  (Perhaps appropriately for a literally self-negating statement, but still.)  Alai 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think that you quite understand what IAR is.  It isn't an "article" at all, and its brevity and simplicity are among its key elements.  For this to be adequately conveyed, the text must appear in the conventional format.  In other words, it's supposed to look short and plain.  Placing it in any sort of box (or otherwise attempting to downplay these qualities) renders its nature, location and very presence unclear.  (As Alai noted, it looks as though the actual policy is missing.)  —David Levy 07:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I prefer the simpler layout (as it currently is). Stephen B Streater 09:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do we feel the need to summarise a policy that it one sentence long? This statement in a nutshell: If the page is only one sentence long, read it and it should not have that policy in a nutshell box. --Lord Deskana (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for keeping IAR as it is, and I agree with you that the whole "nutshell" idea is well, stupid.  But I do agree with the opposition that some clarification is needed--just not on the page itself.  It does seem like that is in place, however, with the "see also" section.  Now I'm just rambling. AdamBiswanger1R.I.P. Steve Irwin 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It's required? This is a perfect occasion to ignore that rule, then! --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy in a nutshell 

message: There's an awful lot of them - its getting confusing --PopUpPirate 22:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I find them terribly useful in ensuring people don't abuse IAR, there should probably be more.--Crossmr 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Also's 

message: What do you all think about moving the ongoing straw poll onto its own sub-page?  As it currently is half of this talk page's length and adds a considerable amount to the load time, it seems worth the effort.  Also when you consider the fact that every time we archive a talk page, the whole straw poll gets moved over to the new page.
Thoughts?  SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me.  As a "poll" it's now rendered moot by the "one man, one vote" system, so it may not even be necessary to transclude it here in the long run.  Avoiding copying it is a clear winner, at any rate.  Alai 04:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "one man, one vote" how, the what? the which? What are you talking about? No, I'm not being sarcastic, I seriously don't understand, and it sounds really scary, could you please explain? :-/ Kim Bruning 15:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm curious what you mean there as well, but I've never really taken that poll too seriously, since all it's doing is showing whether people support or oppose its existence.  We're not "voting" on any particular action with this poll.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that it was meant sarcastically (in the vein of Terry Pratchett's Havelock Vetinari) to describe Jimbo's decision that IAR should be considered as policy. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  <snicker> Now why didn't I catch that? :-) Kim Bruning 00:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving "straw" off to a sub-page? 

message: I added "high standards of" to the policy line. The prior version of the policy could be taken to mean "maintain the low quality of Wikipedia" or "maintain the status quo of a Wikipedia article". There are enough vandals and idiots out there who would deliberately read the line as so. Bwithh 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately the line now includes the phrase "Wikipedia's high standards of quality". I'm just saying. 192.75.48.150 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since every article (or all primary articles, if you exclude minor topic articles/sub-articles) is supposed to aspire to featured article status, there are high standards of quality. The new phrasing does not imply that all or even most Wikipedia articles are of high quality. But you see what I mean by pointing out that there are people out there who will negatively read such lines to mock Wikipedia. Bwithh 17:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really wouldn't be all that concerned about what vandals and idiots might read into it. I'd be more concerned about what a reasonable person will read into it. If you're worried about being mocked, "Wikipedia's high standards of quality" is probably not a good choice of phrase anyway. Even I want to mock that, and I'm not even a complete idiot. Half, tops. 192.75.48.150 18:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The phrasing 'if the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's high standards of quality' doesn't make sense -- or it doesn't make the sense that we want it to. The object of 'improving or maintaining' is 'standards of quality': this wording suggests that people should only ignore rules when editing Wikipedia's standards! I've reverted. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\talk 22:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: God, WP:IAR is idiotic Bwithh 23:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And yet your user page says, :This user's alignment is Chaotic Neutral: the "Free Spirit".  IAR should be perfect for you. --Xyzzyplugh 02:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: High Standards

message: According to this link http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060731fa_fact , Ignore All Rules was, in fact, the first ever wikipedia policy.  "At the beginning, there were no formal rules, though Sanger eventually posted a set of guidelines on the site. The first was “Ignore all the rules.” Two of the others have become central tenets: articles must reflect a neutral point of view (N.P.O.V., in Wikipedia lingo), and their content must be both verifiable and previously published". --Xyzzyplugh 17:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, doesn't ring true - for one thing Sanger is listed as an opponent of this page above. Haukur 17:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here, about 10% of the way down the page.  "I wrote this rule and was its first supporter; but I think we have outgrown it. I'm moving my name to the "opponents" category. --Larry Sanger"  --Xyzzyplugh 17:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duh, sorry. How embarrassing :) Read this for some recent ponderings by Sanger on how to do this sort of thing. Haukur 17:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Ignore All Rules

message: I have added The Snowball clause to a section labelled "corollaries", for obvious reasons. --Tony Sidaway 17:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That obvious reason being the ticky-box argument on Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause? It was already under "See also". 192.75.48.150 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed.  Snowball has it's own page for a reason. -- Isogolem 18:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. BTW, Wikipedia:Policy trifecta lists be bold and avoid instruction creep as corollaries of IAR. --Ligulem 22:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  Yes, that could cause confusion.  The Wikipedia:Snowball clause is a corollary of Ignore all rules, but not a policy in itself. --Tony Sidaway 23:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Tony, I'm sorry to revert again, but I'm unclear about what is gained by adding the "corollary" text in any form to this page.  -- Isogolem 23:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You lost me there.  I agree with you.  I didn't realise that "corollary" was used the policy trifecta, and using it in a slightly different context here would be confusing. --Tony Sidaway 23:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you look at the edit history, it looked you you were particulary interested in getting SNOW mentioned as a corollary.  *Shrug*  Cool. -- Isogolem 04:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  This discussion closed looks like.  See Also for SNOW: needed.  "Corollary" text: not needed.  Thanks! -- Isogolem 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Corollaries

message: I removed this from WP:IAR: it seemed more appropriate to a talk page, rather than the policy page itself. -- The Anome 12:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Copied to top of the page.  That's where these boxes go.  -- Isogolem 22:56, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message box moved from page