Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page. Always remember to keep cool when editing. Changes to this page do not immediately change policy anyway, so don't panic.

This is the page for discussing the Ignore All Rules policy. Policy • Talk • Workshop • WIARM • UIAR • Versions	Shortcut: WT:IAR
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette. Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:Talk Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia v • d • e The spoken word version of this page is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page. The Ignore All Rules page is frequently reverted in good faith. Don't be offended if your edit is reverted: try it out on the Workshop page, then offer it for consensus here, before editing the actual project page.
v • e

Archives (Index)
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Straw poll (permanently active) This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 20 days are automatically archived.

• Note to admins considering protection: Please look through the protection log and the users leading up to the last 6 page protections. You may find a pattern that leads you to consider blocking to be less harmful to the project than another page protection of a core policy.

---

Contents 1 No contradiction 1.1 Policies v. Guidelines 2 Valid application of IAR? 3 Title 4 Policy cat discussion 5 Revision

[edit] No contradiction

I'm late to the previous discussion, but I'd like to contribute my two bytes to the discussion all the same, as an aid for next time.

IAR is, to me, a meta-rule, a rule about rules. IAR resolves conflicts between other rules. To wit:

• RULE: The mission of Wikipedia is....
• RULES: The rules of Wikipedia are....
• IAR rule: Where the mission and the rules conflict, the mission takes precedence.

As the previous discussion noted, IAR is indeed self-referential; IAR may itself be ignored in the service of the mission of Wikipedia. There is no conflict here; when following the rules serves the mission better than ignoring rules, IAR is in fact followed.

Much thanks to the game of Nomic for the applications of meta-rules. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not self referential because a rule that allows you to ignore rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia cannot itself prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Chillum 14:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IAR is a rule; IAR refers to rules; hence the self-reference. Otherwise I agree with you on the substance, in that IAR in good practice does not require ignoring IAR (non-self-contradictory). --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

IAR does not refer to rules, it refers to rules that prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. I think we agree on the larger issue. Chillum 19:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

From what I've found being involved with current and controversial topics, WP:IAR allows people to invoke it whenever it suits the situation. If enough editors are on a particular topic, mob-rule ensues making a mockery of Wikipedia Policies. You might as well not have policies at all. Flipper9 (talk) 21:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While I do agree that there is a use for WP:IAR when you get into a situation where official policies conflict with one another, the policies have got to mean something. Therefore IAR should be something that is used sparingly. Flipper9 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I "use IAR" with every single edit I ever make. That's over 30,000 so far, applications of IAR. I don't use it sparingly. It defines the fundamental mindset with which I approach Wikipedia. That's precisely what it should do.

Wikipedia is not a formal system, and attempting to apply formal logic to it will lead to grief. I say this because I've seen it happen over and over again. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Then we should just get rid of all Wikipedia policies except for WP:IAR and be honest about the fact that Wikipedia is a democracy, mob-led, or anarchist-based. To me it seems that everyone editing, improving, or generating those policies are just wasting their time. Flipper9 (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No, our policies and guidelines serve as a good framework (based upon what generally works). It's when we follow rules for the sake of following the rules that they cause problems, and that's what WP:IAR protects us against. —David Levy 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because we have decided that our rules, policies, guidelines, and social mores are not meant to bind us like chains does not mean they are without value. We can use these rules to better understand what the project is about, to demonstrate a preexisting consensus, and of course as a guide in regard to our best practices. Most importantly we can use them as a starting point to build a better set of ideals. All the while we are free to pursue our primary goal of building, improving and maintaining a free encyclopedia without being hampered by these preconceived notions. Chillum 02:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Flipper9, hi. "The rules" here are things that people wrote down because they worked once. They got to stay "the rules", because they kept working over and over again. That doesn't mean that they always work, but it also doesn't mean that they're valueless. It means that they're to be carefully considered when we make our decisions. That is the message of IAR. The rules are not to be followed mindlessly, but to be carefully considered each time.

This is not to contradict, but to complement and support, what David Levy and Chillum have said above. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, we should not be "bound" by rules when they don't make sense. But from my experience, WP:IAR is invoked when people either don't agree with the policy because they want to push a POV, or because it's just not convenient to follow policies. I think it's used for much more than it was intended for. We need the rule, but if it's not used sparingly and only when necessary, it allows you to completely ignore prior work used to develop policies. That's why I think we should just consider Policies the same as Guidelines because WP:IAR makes them the same since it is applied so liberally. My POV on this comes from trying to convince scientific and medical professionals to contribute to Wikipedia, and I believe that Policies are a good way to improve the quality of Wikipedia content if applied. Flipper9 (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, I apply IAR every single time I edit this site. IAR means a lot more than "break the rules when there's a good reason to do so". It means "don't think in terms of rules, at all. Put the very concept of a rule out of your mind." That's a much, much, much stronger statement.

If people are "citing" IAR for silly reasons, the solution is to talk to those people, and sort that out. In my experience, it's quite easy to cut through spurious applications of IAR. All it takes is two people with common sense saying, "that's silly".

If you can cite an example of someone using IAR incorrectly, please do let me know. If it's part of a current dispute, I, or someone else watching this page, can very probably help.

Of course policies are a good way to improve Wikipedia; that's why they exist. However, saying that policies are a way to improve the project completely misses the point. The best way to improve the project is to just do it. The rules can catch up later, or not. I am very interested in your experience of people trying to use IAR as a "blank check". You should point people who do that to WP:WIARM, which I think makes it clear that IAR is both much more, and much less than it appears to be. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to bring in any current controversies into this discussion since it's not appropriate to bring in a current conflict and muddle the discussion. For example, ignoring MOS:MED with reason stating that rules shouldn't be followed because WP:IAR is the rule, or ignoring WP:NOR for the same reason that WP:IAR trumps all. The application of WP:IAR allows you to disregard any policy that you wish for whatever reason. Of course you should just do it, and fix an article, but if you have multiple editors, then all rules go out the window. Why are policies good? The community has worked on them, and come to the consensus that they help to standardize and bring about some order that makes Wikipedia a good and consistent resource. If you don't follow the policies, then every article will come to its own consensus on how to do things, and standardization isn't possible. I just don't see how policies have any more weight than guidelines in the current climate. That's fine with me if that's what the community wants. It just has to be stated that Policies have no more weight than Guidelines if we are going to be honest because of how the application of WP:IAR is carried out. Flipper9 (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You see, IAR does not "allow" people to disregard anything. IAR requires that we disregard nothing, but rather approach each situation with mindfulness, and the goals of the project in mind. If there are situations where IAR is being used to "trump" other things, then those are abuses, they are incorrect, and they should be stopped. IAR does not tell us to violate policies, it tells us to very, very mindful, considerate and careful.

IAR abuse certainly does happen. A very good defense, if someone abuses IAR, is (either to come here and get one of us, or) to point the editor in question to WP:WIARM, where we read,:

• ""Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule."
• ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable."
• ""Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability."

Those lines enjoy broad consensus support, and you may use them. I am very happy to answer specific questions, or to look at a specific situation. Part of the same mentality that IAR requires is that specific cases are worth much, much more than generalities. Everything is considered on a case-by-case basis, including "applications" of IAR. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

All good points, however WP:WIARM isn't official policy and WP:IAR is. It's an essay, so it's easily dismissed. :( Flipper9 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If someone dismisses any consensus on that basis, he/she misunderstands how Wikipedia works (or is pretending to). This can be remedied via simple communication.

Perhaps we should consider labeling WP:WIARM a guideline or policy, but I'd hate to reinforce the misconception that such a tag is a sacrosanct seal that enables behavior. —David Levy 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say you may feel very free to correct anyone who says "it's only an essay" or "it's only a guideline" about anything. Statements such as that have a place in a formal rules environment, but not here. The question is never, "Is it a policy, guideline or essay?" The question is, "Is it a good idea?" Those trying to play Wikipedia as a rules-game should be corrected; you're welcome to help do that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"IAR is a policy, always has been"--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So.. if this is a policy then we shouldn't be blocking people, right? I mean, those we call "vandals" are just being creative and improving Wikipedia in their own way. Evil saltine (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

They're welcome to vandalize. They'll still be blocked because that's the consensus way of improving Wikipedia. The policy doesn't say that whatever you do will be approved or tolerated. If you're sitting on your talk page, blocked, saying, "but they said IAR!", then you'll find out how well that works! -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So some rules shouldn't be ignored, then. Evil saltine (talk) 11:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it's not so much the rules that shouldn't be ignored, as the fact that others may have different views from you (I mean the vandal of course, not you) as to what constitutes "improving" Wikipedia.--Kotniski (talk) 11:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point, but by different views you mean consensus, right? Evil saltine (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say any rules "shouldn't" be ignored. I'd say that ignoring the wrong rules at the wrong time will backfire badly, but if that's what you want, knock yourself out. Nobody said that ignore all rules would somehow make everyone lose their brains and accept anything anyone says.

Ignoring consensus is sometimes a good idea. A case where that is true is likely to be an unusual exception, and I wouldn't be surprised if it were attended by some brouhaha. That doesn't make it wrong.

Ignoring rules mindfully, and acting correspondingly mindfully is a very good idea. Ignoring rules without also applying common sense, both regarding the product we're making and regarding the community in which we're working... will almost certainly lead to grief. It isn't a matter of precisely which rule you ignore when. It's a matter of how clueless you are about it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Policies v. Guidelines

Regarding policies and guidelines, I would agree that from an IAR perspective there is very little difference. I tend to think of policies as more fundamental, defining what we're doing here in the first place. Guidelines are more like useful rubrics to help us along the way. That's not the official explanation, I know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

You people think about IAR too hard... It should be pretty simple: "If a rule keeps you from improving Wikipedia, ignore it." Not, "But if that means breaking a guideline or any of <random policies here>, then don't, and if it is reining outside on a tuesday afternoon, use of IAR is strictly prohibited, unless you are using IAR as a rationale for ignoring the previously established rule..." no.--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What? Who's making that kind of noise? I don't see us trying to make IAR into a rule with specific types of application here. Quite the contrary, we're claiming that because of IAR, the example you just typed is an exercise in WikiLawyering absurdity. Technical rule arguments do not work here; don't make them. That's the point.

I'm not sure who you're saying is "thinking too hard". I'm just answering questions I know the answers to, so it's not too arduous. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

So basically policies trump guidelines, for those that wish to think that way. For others, they are the same. Again, for others they are irrelevant. People can choose to apply policies/guidelines, or not. It just depends on who is editing the article at any one time. So in essence, they are worthless if an edit conflict arises...as mob rule (aka consensus) is the only "true rule" outside of administrator or home office action. Flipper9 (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If that's what you've taken away from this discussion, there has been a regrettable failure in the communicate process. —David Levy 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, take for example the editing of an article by the concerned author. They want to follow community consensus, so they read the policies and guidelines that have been hammered-out by the community and then use their best judgment to develop and improve an article. Along come 4 other editors to the same article. They all have varying opinions on how the article should be edited. Some of the 5 editors like to follow the policies, some disagree with the policies, and some don't like policies at all. In this case, an edit war ensues (administrators may become involved, WP:3RR tactics might be used, or other ways of getting people blocked). Basically, the majority of the editors (the mob) will prevail in this case. Hopefully the article will be edited to conform to the spirit (if not the letter) of the community-developed policies. But, they may not. It all depends on the editors involved. (key point) They may represent community-wide consensus, or not. It all depends on who is editing the article at the time. My thought is that policies and guidelines reflect community-wide consensus (since the entirety of Wikipedia isn't involved or knows about any one specific article), and should serve to "temper" the consensus going on in any particular article. Flipper9 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if your experience of Wikipedia looks like what you just described. Maybe it's that I'm an eventualist, but I think that, in the majority of cases, a "mob" working contrary to community norms is found out. A few editors may be able to bring an article out of line with the community norms, but I think it's pretty easy for a concerned editor to expose this by using existing community structures.

What you say about the P&G's representing a broader consensus than any one article is certainly true. That is why it takes more than a small group of editors on one article to overturn a broad-based consensus. If they manage to do it for a little while, then that particular article needs fixing. Such situations should be addressed when they are discovered. How to address them is a very worthwhile question to ask, but I'm not sure this is the venue for it.

A situation such as you described can be made much easier or much more difficult depending on the dispute resolution tactics employed by the various parties. If people are goading each other into violating 3RR, then everyone is several steps across the line already. Since no number of wrongs add up to make a right, I can't see any excuse for it. The appropriate response to edit-warring isn't to edit-war back, counting reverts. The appropriate response is to seek broader community input, doing precisely what you say: tempering the consensus going on in that particular article. None of this has all that much to do with IAR, that I can see. IAR abuse is just another shady way to try and undermine consensus; nobody needs to stand for that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess the only reason I bring it up here is that WP:IAR is at the heart of the core Wikipedia policies, and that any attempt to encourage editors to try and utilize Wikipedia Policies and/or Guidelines results in the invocation of WP:IAR in contentious articles. But I understand and agree with your points. Flipper9 (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not a fan of abuse of the policy. On one hand, it tempting to call WIARM a "guideline" for people who don't get the point, but on the other hand, doing so would pretty much capitulate that point and acknowledge that the status means a lot more than we want it to. Eventually, most of the learning has to happen out there in the wiki working on articles, and not down here in the relative peace and calm of the engine room. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we get this sort of discussion all the time, and the only conclusion ever seems to be that everyone has their own philosophy, often regarding all alternative philosophies and even empirical observations as "misunderstandings" of the way "Wikipedia works", I conclude that the way we currently document all this is not leading to great understanding of anything. It can't be that difficult, surely - given that the aim is to write an encyclopedia, not create a rule-based structure, the role of "rules" ought to be something we can define fairly concretely so we can move on to important things.--Kotniski (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that "the only conclusion ever seems to be that everyone has their own philosophy". I've been under the impression that we're pretty consistent about how we interpret it, but that we perennially have people come through to ask "isn't this a contradiction or paradox?" Each time, they're told, "no, and here's why." I think we're documenting it reasonably well; the reason that it keeps coming up is that it's unusual, and not everyone is used to it. The role of rules here is not really like anywhere else, at least not like anywhere I've worked before. -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Valid application of IAR?

(Dlabtot Undid revision 287193344 by Dlabtot (talk) per WP:IAR) What think you? Dlabtot (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a rule against reverting yourself, or a rule that requires you to remove unreliable sources. Which rule were you ignoring? Chillum 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Citing IAR in a reason for doing something almost certainly means that it was a bad idea to do it. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee I have to disagree with Deskana's comment, as I see no basis for it. Citing IAR is important because not everyone knows that you are allowed to do that. Though one should also explain which rule and why it is preventing you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. Now if IAR is your only argument that is a problem, but I don't see that here(mostly because I don't see any argument). Chillum 13:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The theory is that rules can sometimes get in way, especially of things like common sense. Often, if the best reason you can come up with for doing something is "per IAR" then you've not actually got a good reason for doing it, because otherwise you would have just stated that reason. For example, many of my deletions do not fit strictly into either CSD or whatever other deletion rules there are, but I feel no need to cite IAR as a defense, because it's clear what I'm doing is to improve the encyclopedia. I've seen a lot of people try to cite IAR as a defense and end up with a bit of a catastrophic failure. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 13:38, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I agree with the idea "If your only reason is IAR, then you probably don't get IAR", which is a bit different than "Citing IAR in a reason for doing something almost certainly means that it was a bad idea to do it". I agree that when citing IAR you should be able to explain how and why it applies. Notice I said "be able", I don't think you need to explain it up front in an edit summary, if nobody asks about it then you probably did it correctly, but if they do ask you need to be able to explain. Chillum 13:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We should try to get away from people thinking that IAR is something you "cite" or "apply". It's mean to be a general principle behind every single thing you do here, not something you use in certain cases. In cases which may be questionable, it just means that when asked you should explain why you did the right thing, rather than explaining some certain word on a certain policy page means a certain thing. It's just meant to encourage actual rational, relevant discussion rather than silly ruleslawyering. Friday (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, this conversation is interesting, kinda, but what I'm asking is which is better, to have the short stubby article based on one reliable source, or the longer more detailed article based in part on his unpublished diaries. First I reverted way back to the RS-only version but when I saw what that meant in terms of informing the reader, I reverted myself and came here. I do think the longer article is better but our rules are clear that citations must be verifiable to reliable published sources, hence IAR. I'm not in a dispute about this with any other editor and I'm not emotionally invested in it one way or the other. Dlabtot (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Our rules say that claims must be verifiable, not verified. Nearly all Wikipedia articles contain statements that are not explicitly supported by citations. If someone in good faith challenged such statements, then it would be up to anyone who wanted to keep them to find reliable sources for them. But there's no rule against putting uncited statements in, nor any rule that says you must (or even necessarily can) remove them on sight. So at first sight, I don't think you've broken any rule, and therefore have no need to invoke IAR.--Kotniski (talk) 16:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Well said, except that policy does say you can remove uncited claims in sight. It is not required though. Chillum 01:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, can you ref that? My response would have been exactly Kotniskis's (but that RL thing intervened) so I would be happy to have some enlightenment. My understanding has always been "controversial or likely to be challenged" needs a cite. Nothing I saw in Dlabtot's example raised any hairs. There were no controversial claims, the person is dead - to me, that resolves to waiting for someone to come along and challenge it. What am I missing in policy? Franamax (talk) 02:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

From WP:Verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."..."Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"..."It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.". It is a reoccurring theme in the policy and very much in line with its spirit. You can remove such material, though your are not required to and it is not always the correct answer. Chillum 06:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, my understanding is not so different after all. I interpret that as requiring some judgement i.e. if the claims are not wild, and it's not a living person, I'll tend to respect the previous author. In the current case, I have no particular reason to think that someone invented diary quotations. Strict reading of the rule though indicates they should be removed. Franamax (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Sorry I posted here. BTW, citations to unpublished diaries are clearly NOT verifiable. Dlabtot (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're getting at. So maybe this longer article does break the rules, and if so, then I probably agree with you that it's a good case for IAR. (But if a dispute broke out over it, we'd likely be in the minority...)--Kotniski (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The irony is that the person could walk into a library, drop the diaries on the front desk and say "please archive these" - and all would be fine. But the contents of the diary don't change in the process, you just walk to a different building to read them. Franamax (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"Published" does not make something more reliable, it does make it more accessible. The reliability would be an issue of who wrote it, and if it can be verified that person wrote it. Chillum 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Title

Contributions/91.110.158.116 (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)I think they should change the title to Ignore a rule if it stops you from improving Wikipedia.

Except that's not proper grammar...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 20:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Policy cat discussion

Please see Wikipedia_talk:List_of_policies#Quick thought. - Dank (push to talk) 17:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, didn't get support for putting IAR in the enforcement policy cat, how about the conduct policy cat? Again, please see WT:LOP#Quick thought. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

I'm going to bring this up again, because the situation just turned up again. IAR could not be used in suppressing the news about the kidnapped New York Times reporter, because it's only supposed to be used for maintaining or improving Wikipedia. Protecting people is not "maintaining or improving Wikipedia", so you are not permitted to ignore rules for that purpose.

Suggested change:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia or otherwise doing what's right, ignore it.

or even:

If a rule prevents you from doing what's right, ignore it.

IAR as it stands is just too narrow. We should be permitted to ignore rules in order to protect people. The usual place this turns up is when dealing with privacy and BLP problems. You can't ignore a rule to protect someone's privacy, because that isn't "improving or maintaining Wikipedia". The definition should be expanded to include such cases.

I'm by no means tied to this wording and would appreciate if anyone knows of a better way to say it. Ken Arromdee (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't what IAR is for. You want it to "be used" for a purpose outside its logical scope.

IAR works because it's understood that we should deviate from rules when following them to the letter would generate unintended results or otherwise interfere with our mission. It also is understood that ignoring rules in a manner inconsistent with consensus usually leads to disruption, which doesn't improve or maintain Wikipedia.

The scenario to which you refer is quite different; instead of ignoring the letter of a rule to honor its spirit and/or to honor consensus, we occasionally must set aside all of that (including consensus) for the greater good. Given the fact that we cannot rely on consensus where none exists (and we certainly can't wait for it to develop in an emergency situation), there's no point in rewording a consensus-dependent policy to accommodate such an occurrence. This is where office actions typically are necessary, and the line should not be blurred.

Your proposed wording (or anything similar) would advise editors to ignore consensus whenever they disagree with it (in the interest of doing what they believe to be "right"). —David Levy 20:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I see that you've been involved in the Wikipedia:News suppression discussion. If that specific proposal garners consensus, there would be no need to ignore the rules in such a circumstance. If it doesn't garner consensus, we're right back to the problem that I described above (the infeasibility of relying on a consensus-dependent policy). —David Levy 20:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that makes more sense than many of the responses I get to this idea. I'm not convinced, though. Among people who knew what was going on, this incident had consensus. And the more common, weaker versions (applying IAR to protect someone's privacy) pretty much happen with consensus. Ken Arromdee (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is consensus for the practice, a new rule (either Wikipedia:News suppression or a different one) can be created, thereby eliminating the need to ignore the rules. If there is not consensus for the practice, this policy is not an appropriate or effective tool for circumventing dissent (which is not to say that contrary decisions cannot be made at the Foundation level). —David Levy 00:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But protection is a form of maintenance. Chillum 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether the type of scenario that Ken describes falls under "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" is debatable, but this proposal is predicated on the assumption that it doesn't. —David Levy 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone suggests that improving Wikipedia is at odds with doing what's right, then I would question their use of the word "improve". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not that improving Wikipedia isn't regarded as right; it's that other things regarded as right don't necessarily improve Wikipedia (at least, not directly). —David Levy 03:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see that. I don't see it as a reason to change the page, because I agree with your argument above, and because it's about the spirit, not the letter. The spirit is: "Don't worry about what the rules say. Be alert!" That applies whether or not it falls within the lines drawn on the ground with crayons by one of us when we were bored. It applies to life. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Needless to say, I wholeheartedly agree. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Only the letter of the rule is good if you're using IAR in a dispute with someone. That probably won't happen much with news suppression, but it does happen with privacy concerns, where rule wonks say that we must keep some information because (quoting the five pillars) "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and that therefore we may not remove information for any reason external to improving the encyclopedia. It's impossible to quote IAR back at them, because the wording of IAR supports their argument. Ken Arromdee (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've found that, in practice, people don't try to hold IAR as a letter-of-the-law kind of rule. If someone tries to do that, they're wrong and we can inform them that the whole point of IAR is that we don't care about the letters of laws. Seriously, we will back you up on this. If someone tries to "lawyer" IAR, just don't let them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I like the current wording. Our project goal is to improve and maintain an encyclopedia, not to do the "right thing^TM". Chillum 04:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There's also something about leaving the wording alone. I mean, the idea that we can alter reality by changing the words on this page is part of the view that IAR is supposed to discourage. That's a tricky idea to combat, because as more and more people believe it, it becomes true.

Darned word-magic. If you want something to be true, then go out and be it. Don't just write it down somewhere and imagine everyone will fall in line. Let the historians who come after you write it down. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. —David Levy 05:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a bootstrapping problem here. Using a computer analogy, if you need a program to uncompress zip files, that program should not come in zipped format. The instructions for installing your web browser should not be only available over the web.

A rule which tells you not to follow exact words shouldn't require that you already know about not following exact words in order to properly interpret the rule itself. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you read WP:WIARM? Wikipedia is, per IAR, not a computer program. Assuming that it works like one does lead to contradictions; this is ok. Somehow a lot of people get it, and like I said, we'll back you up on this. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words: if we were robots, this would break our robot brains. We're not, so it's ok. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, while software design may fall into difficulties with the concept of "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it", I don't think that it is a concept humans need any special knowledge to understand. Chillum 14:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)