Hosta

	Spoken Wikipedia
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Archives

/Draft1 Straw poll (permanently active)

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

This rule is generally okay, but I advise adding a catch: "to use this rule, one must explicitly invoke it". Otherwise, it seems like just an excuse for editors (and administrators and arbitrators and even Jimmy Wales) to potentially (or actually) do whatever they want without transparency.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When IAR is followed correctly, this often goes unnoticed; fellow editors see the encyclopedia being improved, not the absence of a rule's illogical application. The editor ignoring a rule need not have IAR in mind (and might not even be aware of its existence). It's the results that matter.

Instances in which the policy is "explicitly invoked" are the most likely to be inappropriate and controversial, as they tend to reflect a mistaken belief that IAR grants permission to override consensus by disregarding Wikipedia's rules on a whim.

IAR is about editing sensibly, without allowing pointless bureaucracy to stand in the way. Mandatory adherence to a special process would directly contradict its purpose. —David Levy 17:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rule is already a special process. If someone deliberately disregards another Wikipedia policy or guideline, I don't think it's too much for the community to ask for a heads up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the policy. In some instances, an editor hasn't read the relevant rule (and might be unaware that it isn't being followed to the letter). He/she needn't even read this rule or realize that it applies. It's the end result that matters. —David Levy 18:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This policy is clear: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I don't see how a person can ignore a rule they don't know about. But if it makes a difference to you, I would have no objection to this caveat: "to deliberately ignore another Wikipedia policy or guideline, one should cite this policy explicitly to give other editors a heads up".Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a person can ignore a rule they don't know about.

Have you read each and every Wikipedia policy and guideline in its entirety? If not, you've ignored some of them. Does this render you unable to improve the encyclopedia?

When users simply dive in and do their best, does unknowingly performing an edit inconsistent with the letter of a rule result in catastrophe? Would Wikipedia be better off if everyone erred on the side of caution by not touching a single article before becoming 100% familiar with all of the rules?

But if it makes a difference to you, I would have no objection to this caveat: "to deliberately ignore another Wikipedia policy or guideline, one should cite this policy explicitly to give other editors a heads up".

You continue to misunderstand the policy. Please see the supplementary essays. —David Levy 19:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If this policy is not supposed to mean that you may ignore a rule that you correctly believe would prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, then this policy is very poorly worded.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If something is obviously an improvement then no rules need to be cited – including this one. If it is contested then one may argue the merits of the improvement instead of arguing the rules – including this one. Citing rules – including this one – is not ignoring them. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that summary of the status quo. But I disagree that it cannot be improved per my suggestion. As of now, a person can rely upon this policy without saying so, whether the article edits are contested or not. When a person deliberately decides to ignore a policy or guideline, I think there should be a heads up whether the edits are contested or not. The heads up may result in the edits being contested.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits should be contested on the merits, not because "the rules say so". —David Levy 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rules exist to help advance the merits, and edits can be contested on a combination of the rules and the merits. Keep in mind that we're not just talking here about article edits. This policy is phrased very broadly to include lots of other things too, from article deletion to interaction bans. When editors or admins knowingly ignore rules based on IAR, why not say so? That would attract closer scrutiny on the merits. And if a rules-based debate is already in progress, it's extremely counterproductive for one side of that debate to conceal that he's actually ignoring the rules that are being cited against him.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If ignoring a rule doesn't facilitate Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance, this policy doesn't apply (no matter how strenuously it's "invoked").

If ignoring a rule facilitates Wikipedia's improvement or maintenance only if the action is explicitly brought to the community's attention, the policy's current wording requires it. —David Levy 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One does not need to invoke IAR to ignore a rule that is preventing them from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. As others have said if done right then nobody will need an explanation. If someone thinks it should be mentioned then by all means do so, but it should not be a requirement. HighInBC 20:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least if someone wants an explanation then I think the IAR explanation needs to be provided instead of pretending to follow the other rules. Anyway, thanks for the feedback, I will be moving along now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not required that someone explicitly invokes IAR... However, it is important to remember that CONSENSUS CAN CHANGE... a consensus to ignore a rule can always be challenged ... and a new consensus can be formed that decides to follow the rule after all. This means that... In practice... the more you can explain why the rule was ignored in the first place, the less likely it will be for a new consensus to form. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Blueboar:If one or more editors form a consensus to deliberately ignore a rule, for example the NPOV rule, then the most effective way for them to preserve that consensus is to not openly admit that they are deliberately ignoring that rule.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page's text can also be explained as: "All editorial efforts must be considered on their merit, that is on their worth in improving or maintaining Wikipedia, not in adhering to rules". Carlotm (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes

Wikipedia operates on consensus. Rules are only enforced when people agree that they should be enforced. Attempting to ignore rules is unlikely to succeed if most people disagree with you.

Would anyone like to endorse / oppose / revise this addition? Alsee (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is tricky—people either understand it or they don't, and adding explanations or qualifications is unlikely to help. Several essays are linked at the bottom and they are probably the best that can be done because the original IAR (before the recent addition) was beautifully simple, yet the addition doesn't tell a new editor enough of the background, so we would need more-and-more points to explain what IAR does not mean. The text about rules are enforced only when people want is not quite the point—we don't arbitrarily decide to suspend rules just because everyone who has commented so far thinks that would be good. Rules are suspended when they would prevent an improvement—the need for consensus comes when working out whether a proposal really is an improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a good idea to add to this page. We have plenty of pages explaining how to apply and understand IAR. This sentence you added is more of an explainer pointing out how IAR interacts with WP:POLICY and WP:CONSENSUS, which is covered elsewhere. Basically Johnuniq puts it well. BethNaught (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of IAR is that people usually don't bother citing it when a rule would prevent a non-disputed improvement. It it typical pops up after consensus and policy are going against someone. It would be nice to have some shortcut here that basically suggests consensus will decide if disputed-IAR really is an improvement. Alsee (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have a list of essays describing this policy and they all have their own take. Really all the rule needs to say is that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia then you can ignore it. Your proposed addition is good advice in general but I think it belongs in an essay. HighInBC 15:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote up an essay interpreting IAR mainly in the context of notability guidelines. Not sure if it belongs on Wikipedia-namespace yet; certainly not the main IAR page (since it's not been cited), but I figured it was worth mentioning here to be in the talk archives. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with what this policy says. However, ignoring rules often leads to disputes, so I think a note of caution should be added. So, I propose that the text be amended to:

• If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you may ignore it. However, be aware that other editors may not agree that ignoring the rule actually does improve Wikipedia. When this occurs, discuss the situation on the article talk page, and attempt to reach a consensus.

Please discuss. Blueboar (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestion looks like to be a kind of preventative effort, ie "You surely can ignore rules but it's better you don't, because you will incur in a lot of troubles." As an hyperbolic comment, I might say that this amendment is about bulling editors, especially new ones, on writing on talk pages for search of a consensus that, maybe, is not even requested, then on the real pages. It happened already to me that I was reverted for an addition that was considered inappropriate. Then, after I submitted myself with my little essay in talk page, that addition suddenly became fully accepted. There are people here totally unable, or unwilling, to consider editorial merits, and adding this amendment will give them even more bullying strength. Carlotm (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What on Earth does any of this have to do with bullying? HighInBC 03:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Honestly, the rule just needs to go! What it should be replaced with is, "Use your best judgement!" --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 02:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the policy is great the way it is. We could fill pages describing the best way to use IAR, and we have essays doing just that. There is already an entire Essays on this subject devoted to the interpretation of this policy, no need to do so in the policy itself. HighInBC 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in having this rule as a policy ????????

No wait.. it's actually one of the 5 pillars !!!! Wrong.. very wrong I believe. SuperSucker (talk) 13:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's a catch 22! I don't think we need a catch 22 as a policy (no wait.. as one of the 5 pillars). It's absurd to say "there're rules and one of them says all the others can be ignored". Indeed have a read at the original spirit of the "Ignore all rules" rule at Wikipedia:Trifecta. Uh? SuperSucker (talk) 13:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point in having the pillar and the rule, to me, is to both encourage people to not be shy in trying to edit and to remind us that the point of Wikipedia is not to make lots of pretty rules for their own sake but to build an encyclopedia. You're certainly not the first people to believe as you do. You might be right. Yet the system as a whole seems to work, albeit always imperfectly. And many of us feel that it has a vital point and we very much need the Catch 22 of IAR. It took me a long while to realize that. Might I kindly suggest y'all read the other linked pages and explore it further? (Or, you can just always ignore it! :) ) LaughingVulcan 14:29, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing is deliberately absurd, to make a point. The point itself, that Wikipedia should not be so rule-bound that it prevents editors from creating an encyclopedia, is sound. You might want to try reading some of the essays referenced on the project page. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's so blatantly wrong. Think about the following: someone ignores the personal attack policy saying he/she ignored it according to WP:IAR. Who's right?? I guess you can only answer "it's up to admins".. and that's way loose.. a waste of precious time. It's practically and procedurally wrong. I could be wrong but I don't see how you can agree on keeping it.

Why should you make such a secondary point through a policy? "Wikipedia is not to make lots of pretty rules.."? What wikipedia is meant for is already laid out in the first pillar. "Wikipedia should not be rule-bound.."?!? What? SuperSucker (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's very hard to imagine a scenario where a personal attack improves Wikipedia. Also, the 5 pillars is not actually policy. The IAR rule in its entirety is not an invitation to "ignore all other rules", only those which get in the way of the right way of doing things. What is so wrong with a policy that recognises that some of the lesser rules may be wrong? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't recognise lesser rules may be wrong, it recognises any rule could be. And it does so from the height of a policy. I don't know either how a personal attack could improve Wikipedia but someone else may do, or believe so. However, the personal attack example is the first that came to mind, rather think about the violation of any policy or guideline then. I'm not saying it's not a good rule, just that it shouldn't be policy.. rather an editing guideline since it's about how-to-edit advice. SuperSucker (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of having WP:IAR is that there will alway be rare situations where the best thing to do is to make an exception to a rule. Blueboar (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there are such situations, but since they are rare there's no point to make through a policy, because it's clear we all believe any rule has a negative side: the positive one should simply be larger, which I believe does not happen if WP:IAR is given the height of a policy. As a policy WP:IAR grants a false self-determination (it's a catch 22 as said, thus following it is never correct). SuperSucker (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know they're rare? The best usages of IAR is when you don't have to explicitly invoke IAR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because if they were not, the rules being violated would be fixed I guess? SuperSucker (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we don't write reams and reams of rules to cover all cases or edge cases. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the point with WP:IAR as a policy is that it's not convenient to expand the other—already existing—reams and reams of rules? It's not convenient either to have a policy that contradicts its other peers, inviting anyone to logically think policies are secondary to their self-determination.

What would you do if two articles of the constitution basically stated that:

1. "Law must be respected"
2. "Sometimes not"

It's the same argument: the constitution can be observed, judged, criticized by anyone, and even changed, but it cannot be contradicting. The constitution (policies, which are standards) cannot contradict itself, but it's fine to have laws (guidelines, which help to follow standards) stretching it.

That's my point in downgrading IAR. SuperSucker (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are most definitively NOT comparable to a constitution in any way other than some sort of contrasting alternative. The policies and guidelines are not foundational. They evolve over time and at any given point in time there are multitudes of contradictory and conflicting statements in them. IAR encourages editors to make good faith edits regardless of their familiarity or lack thereof to any particular area of policy and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 21:11, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why "NOT comparable"? Do you prefer a comparison with chess? Ok, think you and your friend are going to play chess and agree that:

1. "The king must be captured to win"
2. "The king cannot be captured"

What's the point in it? A never ending game? That's a hyper game. SuperSucker (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded when Spock defeats the hyper-logical computer by saying "I'm lying". --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a game (at least not in any conventional sense). And even so, IAR is not diametrically as contradictory as the proposed hypothetical. WP:Wikilawyering (i.e., a form of gamesmanship) is at least in part the reason why IAR is necessary is an system such as Wikipedia which is not strictly speaking bound by the rules defined in the policies and guidelines. older ≠ wiser 23:27, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure laws can be contradicting as they take into account the intentions of an actions. It is against the law for you physically injure someone. Heimlich maneuvers can cause bruising and fractures. However the intent was not to injure, so in this case, you can ignore assault laws, and it's okay for you to "injure" someone. Everyone would agree to that. Similarly, if you make an edit that is technically against "the rules" but everyone who comes across it thinks it improves the encyclopedia, there's no need to revert or comment further. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a contradiction, it's a strech. Intentions? You go hit someone with a car and argue it was not your intention. Very loose. SuperSucker (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP has a single goal: the encyclopedia; nothing else matters. WP's "rules" tend to get worded like they're all important, thus IAR. It is loose. Get over it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we just aim for the goal then: no field lines, no rules, no referee, no tactic. How do you even score? That's non-sense. SuperSucker (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are lines, rules, and referees... and most of the time we play within the lines, follow the rules, and the refs call penalties... its just that sometimes (on rare occasions) the players ignore them, and the refs know when NOT to call a penalty. Blueboar (talk) 22:17, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would you play.. baseball for instance ..if a rule explicitely stated: "all the others may be ignored"? Referee or not, you can't have such a rule. True or not? SuperSucker (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a timesink, plain and simple. SuperSucker has their own idiosyncratic definition of Catch-22 and can't bring themselves to understand that WP:IAR does not invite anarchy and a little give in our rules is a feature, not a bug. Nothing is going to come of his suggestion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR would rather be a timesaver if only it was either downgraded from the policy status, or kept as policy but fixed by restoring its original sense which was explicitly slightly hilarious in order to restore its five pillar statement's attribute which was "..besides the four general statements above..". Or something on this line. Just sayin'. SuperSucker (talk) 23:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Said. Noted. Done. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done what? SuperSucker (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's pointless to interpret rules in a way differently than others do, only to argue that the rule as you interpret it is contradictory. IAR serves its purpose, it seems to be working and is rarely over-applied. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's rather about the enviroment it produces, a loose one. Rules are applied anyway, even if those required to follow them don't explicitly invoke them every single time.. it would be foolish and bureaucracy would kill a wiki (and in real life it works the same), can we agree on this? I suppose that's simply the tacit part laid as "the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording", meaning "do whatever you can not to let the rules get in the way of sound edits".

For the last time: in my humble opinion, as abundantly explained a rule cannot state "the rules may be violated", unless it's purpotedly expressed with some humor, explicitly remarking there's a catch, instead of making a catch out of every single rule. SuperSucker (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose nowadays it relies more on its seemingly paradoxical nature than on humor in order to make its point; but nevertheless it is a serious rule, and sorely needed. For a start, we have so many rules describing so many situations that it's impossible to follow all of them, all the time; in many places the rules contradict each other, and applying them is largely an exercise in knowing which one you should ignore for the best effect (I even wrote an essay explaining this point).

The essence of IAR is that we should never apply rules for their own sake; the ultimate goal is always to assess whether we're making the encyclopedia better by enforcing them, or not. I don't think that's something that could reasonably be objected to, as long as all the people involved at some particular case agree that "ignoring the rules" is the best thing to do there. Diego (talk) 22:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My question is: is it "serious and needed" to the point of having it seemingly paradoxically state that all rules can be ignored? Major rules (policies) are supposed to be clear, and not contradict the others. To ignore rules is a strictly personal choice, which naturally contradicts the point it's supposed to preserve: making the encyclopedia better. I still believe it should be either downgraded to guideline or fixed with the original explicitness it conveyed. SuperSucker (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Major rules are supposed to be clear, and not contradict the others. Uh, actually that's not something that we actively pursue on a deep level; when it happens, it's more a byproduct of people trying to make sense of how rules interact with each other, than a community-wide effort to define simple and clear processes. The actual overarching principle of policies and guidelines has always been "don't rely too much on them". (And note that "Ignore all rules" is not an absolute - it has the all-important qualifier "when a rule prevents you from improving the encyclopedia").

I think that's why you're having problems with "Ignore all rules", if you think that there should be a consistent and polished body of law. We certainly haven't got such thing now, and there isn't any coordinated large scale effort trying to make them into that.

Rules appear as compilations of best practices over some specific aspect of the project (such as disambiguation of article titles, style guides about esoteric cases of grammar and syntax, or behavioral guides regarding the best way to revert your fellow editors), and they typically can't be applied outside the scope of that particular aspect; so it's often the case that they apply unrelated criteria and even provide some contradictory advise. We often consider that a good thing, as it's really hard to make one-size-fits-all rules that adecuately cover all the cases in all situations.

The closest thing we have to a governing are the pillars and core content policies, and the various forums for enforcement of their spirit and resolution of large problems. All those were instituted in the early days of the project by our ancestors, and we keep them to this day, occasionally surprised at the creative ways in which we can manage to make them contradict each other, pointing out at the possible interpretations of the rules that firmly endorse opposite courses of action. Diego (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're basically saying: "the reason for no rational body of rules is because we(?) are fine with it". This has always been the attribute of discouraging online (and not) communities, which is obviously wrong (indeed it contradicts the foundational principles). Simple and clear has always and will always be the preferred course of action in any rational enviroment (given that it's also right): IAR is wrong, it's unclear and produces complication. This argument is missing logic - rationality.

You don't "make sense of how rules interact with each other"? You don't believe in the sinergy of the rules? Would you agree with these two laws?

1. An underage citizen is lyable of embezzlement and jail time of at least 20 years and not more than 25, if the loot is valued above 1 dollar
2. An adult of age is lyable of embezzlement and jail time of at least 1 day and not more than 5, if the loot is valued above 1 million dollars

I really don't understand the point in this illogical carved-in-stone agreement you all seem to approve. Would anyone care to explain? SuperSucker (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like "the reason for our (rational) system of rules stems from an unconventional approach, and we're fine with it". The system of rules is rational within its intended purpose, and largely works; but it doesn't work as a typical judicial system, it was created following a different set of principles and axioms, and that's why it's different. I've asked you two questions below to see if we can figure out a way to explain you why the system was created this way. Diego (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food for though: IAR doesn't say "Ignore all other rules", it says "Ignore all rules". Can you ignore IAR? Diego (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not that explicit. Through the years the explicit hilariousness has been removed for some reason, but I'm not convinced by any given one. It looks as an important rule (it touches all the others), and it appears it has been very badly morphed. SuperSucker (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am hereby ignoring IAR! So there! Logic malfunctions, and the space-time-continuum goes "pfft". Sigh. Oh, well, back to useful WP stuff. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be completely ignoring an important part of the policy, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia" then you can ignore it. It does not say that anyone can ignore any rule they want to whenever they want to, a rule can only be ignored if it stops the improvement or maintenance of the encyclopedia. You are throwing all kinds of red herrings in that have absolutely nothing to do with this policy. If you can't discuss the actual rule and explain how to improve it this conversation will go absolutely nowhere and should be shut down as it accomplishes nothing. -- GB fan 13:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, but is that rather a guideline or a major policy?

1. Rules are written to regulate collectiveness by "taking over individality"
2. If you believe a rule should not take over that, then it should be made explicit there's a catch

Not? It's just too unclear the way it is written, to keep it as a policy. It should be remarked it's purpotedly unclear in order to communicate "denial of over-strictness" (instead of "looseness"), or made a guideline. SuperSucker (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consisting of one simply worded sentence, this is probably the most clearly written policy we have. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I second that :-) You can't get any simpler than that. The "policy" box at the top is also crystal clear: "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow". So there is no catch, this is a regular policy with all the force of policy. In fact, it's a simplification of the Fifth Pillar that "Wikipedia has no firm rules"; by being simpler, it is easier to apply in an operative way (it's easier to say "I'm ignoring this rule because it prevents me from improving Wikipedia" than it is to evaluate that "this rule is not firm and I think its interpretation should evolve").

SuperSucker, let me ask you two questions to see if we can find out where our positions start to diverge:

1. What do you think is the purpose of Wikipedia having a written set of rules? (In your words, what is the ultimate goal justifying that we should have a way of "taking over the individuality" of our editors?)
2. And equally important: How do you think that such system of rules should be enforced?

Diego (talk) 14:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia is a very well formatted webiste with a wide amount of information, and that's its purpose (to be such)
2. I don't think I understand this question. I'm just pointing at the way a pillar/policy is written. I believe I know what it originally is meant for.

SuperSucker (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SuperSucker, I don't ask about the purpose of Wikipedia. I asked about the purpose of the rules in Wikipedia. This is a wiki, so why not just editors go around making whatever they think it's best and reverting whatever they other editors got wrong, with no overarching rules? What is the purpose of having a set of written rules at Wikipedia? And what do you believe is the best way to make sure that those rules are known and enforced? Those are my questions. Diego (talk) 19:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'm sorry, I got that wrong.

1. The purpose of rules in wikipedia is to permit wikipedia to reach its purpose
2. The best way to enforce the rules is.... woah, I never thought about that maybe. I guess the best way to enforce them.. is by applying the consensus process: debating and having admins who can decide when the debate is no longer productive (which is what happens in any context whether in real life or online).

SuperSucker (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we're on the same boat so far. If the purpose of the rules is to allow Wikipedia grown into a website with wide information, the characteristics of the rules need to be created to support that purpose. Now, some musings:

• In Wikipedia, more often that not there's no need to have admins deciding whether the rules are met. Most of the time, people discussing on a talk page can reach a consensus on their own, without the need for a referee. WP attempts to work in a decentralized way, and deferring to formal arbitration is seen as a last resource, to be used when there is no other possible way forward.
• You stated that a requirement of rules is that they not contradict all the others. A way to achieve that is by carefully writing all the rules so that they can't possibly contradict any other combination of rules; this would be needed if you were to apply all the rules at every situation. But ensuring that rules have that property is a lot of work, and all that work could be better employed for writing articles.

Though, from a strictly logical point of view, there exist a different way to achieve consistency, which is: don't apply all the rules always. At any given situation, use only a subset of rules that is consistent and relevant to the point at hand. This "local consistency" also produces clear, non-contradicting instructions; and it's much easier to write rules to work in this second way than it is to ensure that all of the written rules are consistent in every possible way.

Given that "enforcing the rules" is not a goal on itself, but only a tool to resolve conflicts as they appear, the second approach is preferred. It requires a lot less maintenance work, as rules can be kept much more informal than they would be if we used them as a legal body that must be kept coherent in its entirety. And, given that the rules are being re-interpreted to assess for consensus at each new situation, each discussion can have their own set of rules invoked and assessed; so the second, less formal approach is easily made to work very well. Diego (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly very loose. Five million articles written respecting policies. Yet we are not able to write a few tens policies? Even articles are fixed if anyone contradicts another one. It's very obvious that's what it's supposed to be done.

Uhmm.. It looks as there has been a weird form of devolution - an "administrative decentralization", rather than an "editing decentralization" as you claim. SuperSucker (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly written yes, but wrong. SuperSucker (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very clear as written. One sentence that says that you can ignore a rule if it stops you from improving or maintaining the encyclopedia. I don't understand what is unclear about that sentence. -- GB fan 15:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's unclear is its relation to the other rules. I abundantly remarked this. We all know, I hope, what it actually should mean, yet it's worded differently. Rules are meant to not be contradicting, it's like math. Actually nothing is supposed to be contradicting, indeed contradicting articles are fixed. In real life, laws are mutually supportive. Anything on which people rely is required to strives to not be. It's plain logic.

Art may be contradicting, probably. Is wikipedia art? I don't think so. Maybe it is. But I really don't think so. Maybe it shares some attributes but it's not. It's culture, it's pop, but rather a product of rationality than art. This is getting philosophical.

I don't understand how you can support the way it's worded, since it defies common sense. SuperSucker (talk) 01:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules are not a legal system, are not intended as one, and should not become one. If you think that the rules should work like a body of law, it's no wonder that you don't understand why it's done the way it is. The overhead of running a formally binding legal system is not something that the project wants to face, as we feel that the little improvements in coordination we would achieve over the current system do not compensate what is lost in lack of flexibility.

Our policies and guidelines are like going to your ten best friends and asking them for advice on how to behave in a hurdle. It would make little sense requiring them that all agree to a single coherent position before you act upon their advice. It's a nice thing to have when you can get it, but not something to actively pursue.Diego (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice analogy Diego, perhaps it should go in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, or perhaps in a supplemental essay. older ≠ wiser 11:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]