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.
This sounds like the kind of thing one would feed to a newbie to help them relax, despite which I have never seen a newbie cite it. By contrast there are plenty of admins who will cite IAR to justify various actions. I would like to hope that none of them were doing it because they were "nervous or confused". As a policy statement, IAR really ought to say something more along the lines of: The ultimate goal of Wikipedia is create an encyclopedia. The community may choose to ignore any rules if they happen to conflict with this goal.
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.
-DF