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
On 9/20/05, DF dragons_flight@yahoo.com wrote:
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.
when: we can't even bend the dissruption clause far enough to cover whatever we are doing why: because we want to.
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
It's a stick of dynamite. If for the sake of the project you need to do something and the rules are in the way, you may take it upon yourself to emply the dynamite.
If when the smoke clears there is agreement that things are better than they would have been otherwise, there may be a little polite applause. Otherwise you'd better just reverse what you did, apologise, and move on.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
It's a stick of dynamite. If for the sake of the project you need to do something and the rules are in the way, you may take it upon yourself to emply the dynamite.
If when the smoke clears there is agreement that things are better than they would have been otherwise, there may be a little polite applause. Otherwise you'd better just reverse what you did, apologise, and move on.
Uncle Ed is very good at that. :-)
Ec
This has been the most oligarchic policy on wikipedia since it was created. Obviously an anon can't "Ignore All Rules", he'll be banned. When an admin "ignores all rules" and is justly banned, he unblocks himself. Thats the spirit oif the rule.
In my experience this policy is yet another excuse for the old hands to bite newbies and those outside their clique. It's an unprofessional policy, in fundamental contradiction of the rigour required for the creation of an authoritative book of reference.
Jack (Sam Spade)
However, it also says that the purpose of Wikipedia comes first, the spirit of the rules second, and the letter of the rules third.
Those who treat the rules as a game to be played and loopholed around are well advised to remember this.
-Matt
On 9/19/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
This has been the most oligarchic policy on wikipedia since it was created. Obviously an anon can't "Ignore All Rules", he'll be banned. When an admin "ignores all rules" and is justly banned, he unblocks himself. Thats the spirit oif the rule.
In my experience this policy is yet another excuse for the old hands to bite newbies and those outside their clique. It's an unprofessional policy, in fundamental contradiction of the rigour required for the creation of an authoritative book of reference.
Jack (Sam Spade) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 9/19/05, Matt Brown morven@gmail.com wrote:
However, it also says that the purpose of Wikipedia comes first, the spirit of the rules second, and the letter of the rules third.
Those who treat the rules as a game to be played and loopholed around are well advised to remember this.
Indeed. One of the major subtexts of IAR is that policy is there to help write an encyclopedia; if policy gets in the way of that, policy is and should be ignored. Wikipedia is not a place for people to play at (or practice at) being lawyers, and people who wish to "wikilawyer" need to find somewhere else to do it. Wikipedia is not a Nomic.
Kelly