DF wrote:
On 9/19/05, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On the contrary. IAR is crucial to Wikipedia, because it allows us a "common sense override". This means that we can always act in the best interests of the encyclopaedia, even when it is not directly allowed in policy.
IAR is a vital part of the "Wiki" part of Wikipedia, just as NPOV is vital to the "pedia".
I agree with the principle that common sense should trump bureaucracy, etc., but I have never really liked the way that IAR is expressed. (When was the last time the average person read it, really?) The current text reads:
If rules make you nervous and depressed, then simply use common sense as you go about working on the encyclopedia. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules... including this one.
That seems well said. It's obvious that the rule is easily abused by sysops with a POV. In that case the problem is not in the rule. It might serve you better to develop a clear definition of "common sense"
Maybe having the fluffy stuff is good too, but if IAR is going to be a core principle is should more clearly state when and why admins choose to ignore all rules.
That would be self-defeating.
Ec