Ignore all rules

One of Wikipedia's wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: 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.

Ignore all rules

==Supporters== #User:CheeseDreams #user:WojPob #user:Jimbo Wales #user:AyeSpy #user:OprgaG, #user:Invictus #user:Koyaanis Qatsi, #user:Pinkunicorn #user:sjc #user:Mike Dill #user:Taw #user:Gareth Owen #user:netesq #user:anthere #user:Lir #user:Rotem Dan -- I think encouraging any constructive contributers is fine (as opposed to vandals and trolls), these folks may learn the do's and dont's in the hard way, but possibly lead the 'pedia into new directions.. #user:TheOmnilord -- In a very tongue in cheek way. #User:Eclecticology Rigidly opposing rigidity. #user:Frecklefoot -- I didn't read all of the 'pedia's rule before contributing. When I needed to know a rule pertaining to something specific, I looked it up. #User:Olathe -- I don't like bureaucracy, but I won't go so far as to start unnecessary wars. I can always undo my changes later if necessary. # User:Fantasy # User:Wikimaster # User:Sverdrup # User:172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) But Follow with ''discretion'' and occasionally ignore this rule. User:172 18:47, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) # User:Eequor - better to be constructively wrong than destructively right. # User:GuanacoUser talk:Guanaco 16:37, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) # User:Snowspinner 05:31, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) This rule is the essence of soft securty vs hard security. # User:The Cunctator 05:27, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC) I think I'm going to support it again. # User:Siroxo—User:SiroxoUser talk:SiroxoSpecial:Contributions/Siroxo 13:01, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC) within reason. Policy isn't meant to be absolute, but to aid the development of the encyclopedia. # User:Lst27 User talk:Lst27 03:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) # User:Dcoetzee 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) — Either I don't understand this rule, or people who object to this rule don't understand it. No editor has to know or follow the rules, because others will clean up after them, stop them, or do whatever else they have to do. It's certainly more polite to follow the rules, but in the end what we need is raw material we can polish into good content. User:Dcoetzee 04:08, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) # User:Amgine # User:Elian this rule is essential to maintain the openess of Wikipedia for goodwilling new contributors (see also :de:Benutzer:Elian/Regeln in german) # User:Beta_m. Yes, i was waiting for the rule like that. Otherwise you end up with "good old boy network" where only people who already know what they are doing are welcome to endit anything. # User:Gubbubu 15:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) some editors like to use Wikipedia policies for killing other's oppinions. I'm fed up with them. User:Gubbubu #User:Mindspillage User talk:Mindspillage #User:Dan100 #User:JondelI Jondel, do hereby pledge my support and strict obedience to this particular rule in law and spirit and to the best of my abilities. And please don't take this seriously. # User:Kim Bruning 10:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) I thought I'd already supported this! # User:Dralwik 01:40, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) AMEN. # User:Wgfinley 19:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) # User:User-Name 22:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC) A little creativity never hurt anyone. # Never realized there was voting on this. 02:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC) # Okay, I'll support now. As long as people are happy and editing. User:Radiant!User_talk:Radiant!meta:mergist 10:10, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) # User:Huw_Powell if this is the only rule followed, vandals won't know what rules to break. I think that as WP evolves into a better and better resource, the barrier to newcomers adding information will seem higher - hence referrals to this rule "invite them in" in a friendly way. ==Opponents== #user:Tim Chambers #user:AxelBoldt -- deliberately breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad. # User:Rednblu -- //AxelBoldt's comment jumps OUT. Yes! That's it.// #User:David spector #~~user:Larry Sanger~~ (User has left the project) #User:Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC) #User:Noldoaran User talk:Noldoaran #User:Lethe 15:23, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC) -- (if you support "ignore all rules", shouldn't you be opposed to "ban repeat vandals"?) #User:BadSanta -- The proponents are NOT serious. Anarchy gives rise to chaos. Without ANY enforced rules, Wikipedia would experience rampant destruction. Freedom still exists abundantly (except to break rules). # User:SimonP 23:18, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC), with the three revert rule, and other regulations, users will quickly be banned if they decide to ignore official policies. #I would like to rephrase to: If all the rules on Wikipedia make you confused or depressed, ignore them and use your indwelling common sense and decency instead. User:Dbachmann User_talk:Dbachmann 10:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) #In favour of flexibility and bending/breaking the odd rule/guideline, but not in favour of anarchy (page name, "Ignore all rules"). User:Zoney ♣ User talk:Zoney 20:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) # тəzєті">User:Tezeti I am in favor for users that are new ignoring Wikipedia's markup and other rules such as this and users breaking small rules is not a problem, however telling people to ignore every rule as a wikipedia policy is encouraging vandalists and all rulebreakers. # The rule was formulated in the early days of Wikipedia to attract developers (see Larry Sanger quote below). Times have changed. We have a lot of developers and we do need the rules if we want them to be able to work together. (Of course, small rules can be ignored.) User:Nyenyec User talk:Nyenyec 20:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) # This is silly, and guaranteed to be followed in the worst way by the ignorant. — User:Xiong熊">Special:Emailuser/XiongUser talk:Xiong*">User:Xiong/Metatalk 11:29, 2005 May 8 (UTC) ==Comments== I say this'll work fine so long as people exhibit common courtesy and don't decide wikipedia is a medium for proselytism. -- JoshuaGrosse ---- It is interesting to think about the dynamics of social interaction within a wiki. Everyone's impact on the medium is, in a sense, exactly equal to their participation in the medium. As an example, let's take a view which is just obviously wrong to most of us (although someone else might not agree), let's say the view that the earth is really flat. If flat-earthers descend on the site in hoards, then they will eventually win unless pre-flat-earth regulars band together to continually refactor the pages. It isn't necessarily about numbers, but also about how dedicated the numbers are. On Usenet, the same people argue endlessly for years on end. I know of some newsgroups that I used to be addicted to, where I know that if I went back today, some of the same people would be there arguing the same things they were arguing 10 years ago. The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy. A statement, for example, of the Scientology issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such. It would probably be left alone. :-) --User:Jimbo Wales ---- ''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --User:Jimbo Wales ''Well, what about the related paradox that there is no Rule to decide that something is a Rule (and so should be ignored)'' --User:OprgaG I don't know what's going on but I'm sure [http://encarta.msn.co.uk/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761572232 Kurt G�del] would have something to say about it. ''My MBTI is INTJ. I'' live ''to'' make ''the rules. :-)'' <>< User:tbc ''My MBTI is ESTP. I'' must ''destroy'' rules - create m:visions - however I tend to agree with Axel that deliberate disciplined rule-breaking sets useful precedent, but disagree about ignorance - a healthy ignorance of what does not matter is necessary to a happy life 24 ---- User:Jimbo Wales's observation of the 'no-rules' paradox has an interesting implication for wikipedia. As with all real-world paradoxes, this one generates a possibly infinite loop: one person edits a page any way they want, another person disagrees and changes it, the first person changes it back, and so on. Although one of the parties will probably get tired of this loop, the possibility of its existence does imply that those editors who follow no rules will waste their own editing time, and possibly require extra editing time for others as well. When you multiply such infinite loops by the number of such contentious pages, you probably would get a major drain on the encyclopedia's resources. User:David spector 11:40 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT) :The real paradox is that in order to follow this rule you must ignore it. : is this a flaw in the NPOV? or a flaw in the software? :: The rule begins with "If rules make you nervous and depressed..." There is no paradox at all, this rule serves to (1) permit editing by the chronically-afraid-of-doing-things-wrong and (2) reduce their nervousness and depression about the rules (someone will come along and fix the problem without yelling at you). Wikipedia has a ''lot'' of rules (Wikipedia:Naming conventions, Wikipedia:Describe external links, Wikipedia:Use color sparingly...), it's just that we won't kill you if you break them. Perhaps this rule should be rephrased: "The purpose of editing articles is to make them better, not to make them perfect." User:Paullusmagnus 23:09, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC) (P.S.: my MBTI is INTP: I live to rewrite the rules) ---- IMHO, this rule is the essence of Wikipedia, as it reflects the axiomatic supremacy of the individual. To wit, those who need rules can make them up and debate them; those who don't need rules can ignore them. As for the 'no-rules' paradox, and the resulting drain on the encyclopedia's resources, this is a necessary evil. I, for one, have never been a believer in the "practical limitations" of openness. Rather, when I disagree with someone, I state my view and state my reasons, then I do my best to figure out what their view is and the reasons why they hold that view. In the context of Wikipedia, I believe that this sort of debate should take place on talk pages rather than turning Wikipedia articles into ideological battlegrounds. But that's just my personal opinion. Other people are free to ignore it.--user:netesq ---- I wrote this rule and was its first supporter; but I think we have outgrown it. I'm moving my name to the "opponents" category. --User:Larry Sanger ---- I think common sense is pretty useful. User:Lir 19:15 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC) :"Common sense is merely the collection of prejudices aquired by the age of eighteen" - Einstein
User:Palefire :"Common sense is not so common." —Voltaire :"Common sense always speaks too late. Common sense is the guy who tells you you ought to have had your brakes relined last week before you smashed a front end this week. Common sense is the Monday morning quarterback who could have won the ball game if he had been on the team. But he never is. He�s high up in the stands with a flask on his hip. Common sense is the little man in a grey suit who never makes a mistake in addition. But it�s always somebody else�s money he�s adding up." —Raymond Chandler (1888�1959), Philip Marlowe, in Playback, ch. 14 (1958). ---- I would rather see a rule similar to the one that the great haiku poet Matsuo Basho is supposed to have told his disciples: "Know the rules before you break them." User:BlankVerse User talk:BlankVerse 05:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Fun-Fulfillment== The point is fulfillment, fun , a sense of contribution. Too many rules tend to choke this out.--User:Jondel 07:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Title== Shouldn't the title be changed to "Ignore rules when necessary". "Ignore all rules" could be used by people vandalizing Wikipedia. тəzєті">User:Tezeti 18:52, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC) :You've just made the mistake of reading the rule too literally. Part of the purpose of having such a guideline is to remind people not to be excessively literal in following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the rules. --User:Michael Snow 20:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) == Proposed rephrasing == After reading some of the discussion above, perhaps a more agreeable rule is this one: :''Enforce rules gently.'' In other words, don't attack people who don't bold their article title or name an article with a verb. Just fix it for them and drop them a friendly reminder if warranted. I think this has much of the desired effect of this rule (you can edit without fear) without its strange connontations of encouraging rampant rulebreaking. User:Dcoetzee 05:40, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) :Or Give some kind of first warning(?) The second or third (or fourth )administrators are ussually ruthless or bold. I'm sure everybody follows rules more or less and will do something to prevent wikipedia from devolving to anarchy.--User:Jondel 05:59, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) I disagree most strenuously with this rephrasing. This rule is not, and never really has been a warning to sysops. Rather, it's a permission to everybody. It's saying, "Look, if you really want to do X because X will be easier for you to contribute, do X, and we'll tidy it up." The two implied howevers are "But do keep in mind, we're going to tidy it up, and if you pitch a fit we'll be mad," and "X had better be done in good faith." But first and foremost, this rule means "Go ahead, we can fix just about anything you do in good faith." That's very, very different. User:Snowspinner 14:09, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC) :Concur with Snowspinner. Note that the implication is "Ignore all rules... even this one." It's not promoting anarchy, it's promoting common sense: policies and guidelines are good and necessary, but too much legalistic enforcement of them is neither. Also, I am sure that anyone using this rule to justify blatant abuse would have to face the consequences they deserved from nearly every single person on the Support side, and as well they should. User:Mindspillage User talk:Mindspillage 14:26, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) ::Would a note about ''respect the spirit of the rules'' be useful here? User:Thryduulf 14:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC) :This is true — it's sort of aimed at a different audience, the idea being that it's not a rule you follow but a rule you take solace in others following. I also agree that it's more a guideline than a rule. I do disagree though with your implication that only sysops enforce rules — to the contrary they bear very little of this collective burden. User:Dcoetzee 03:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) I think ''spirit of the rules/law'' would be useful, at least as a corollary along with ''enforce rules gently''. When I said fourth administrators are ruthless, I didn't meant that is this rule is a warning to sysops. I meant administrators may have to be ruthless to enforce rules.(eventually someone will ) But it is really to keep out habitual and frequent vandalizers,trolls,etc. Veteran wikipedians become familiar with the rules and comply by habit. I'm very sure even all the supporters don't support anarchy and blatant abuse. It's just that, some people loose enthusiasm with too many rules and leave. --User:Jondel 01:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) Added to my responce above: Eventually sysops ''and/or users'' will enforce rules.--User:Jondel 04:09, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) ==Not policy?== This still shows 73% support above, and I'm not at all sure that there's consensus for the declaration that this is no longer policy. I think the policy could use clarity, certainly - perhaps with a note about the sorts of rules that are to be ignored, perhaps with a note about how, in the end, Wikipedia is run on common sense, not policy, and that if something doesn't seem to work, you should go ahead and try ignoring it to see what happens (With a note about how if you seem to be upsetting people, it may not have been as good an idea as you thought). I don't know. But I think it's clear that "not policy" does not describe this. : I don't believe the vote has been taken seriously for quite some time by anyone but the iconoclasts among us. Perhaps there should be a new vote. User:UninvitedCompany Co., User_talk:UninvitedCompany 21:32, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Perhaps. Then again, I don't think the policy has been usefully cited in some time either. I think its current status as an old and rarely cited but stil present bit of policy is pretty much appropriate. To my knowledge, it hasn't even ever been employed as a defense in the arbcom, so I certainly don't see its harm. User:Snowspinner 21:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) :::Any poll in which Larry Sanger voted should be taken with a grain of salt due to its age. User:Raul654 21:38, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) ::::I'll admit that it's a pretty old poll. But I don't think the move to "not policy" is at all clear, or necessarily wise. User:Snowspinner 21:41, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC) The intent of this policy could be worked into Wikipedia is not (an experiment in anarchy). User:Gazpacho 21:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Policy! The poll is perennial, it looks like. People keep adding to it from time to time. I find it fascinating to hear (from this section) that people like Jimbo "wikipedia" Wales and

TAW

are considered iconoclasts in some circles. (Actually, come to think of it, that might be accurate. ''Down with the Encyclopedia Britannica! '' O:-) ) In any case, this policy appears to have sufficient support, and should thus be treated with respect :-) User:Kim Bruning 10:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Rewrite == I took the liberty of rephrasing this to reflect some of the comments above, particularly from Mindspillage. As to the issue of how this should be classified, might I suggest Wikipedia:Ignore all categories? --User:Michael Snow 22:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Rules of the Chinese road == Anyone who has lived long in China and also in another country, such as US or Germany, has noticed some striking contrasts. Chinese traffic ''law'' is not that much different from American -- drive on the right side, stop for red lights, and so forth. Chinese traffic ''signs'' generally conform to the international standard. But the ''customs'' of Chinese drivers and others who share the road are very different. A common conveyance is a three-wheeled motorcycle taxicab, about the size of deep freezer, with just enough room for two skinny-hipped passengers to sit behind the driver. They resemble Bangkok's ''tuk-tuks'' and so I call them, since Chinese themselves do not seem to be able to agree on a name. Long accustomed to hard bargaining with tuk-tuk drivers and wild rides through packs of bicyclists, I still found room one day for some amazement when my driver accelerated on approach to a red traffic signal at a skewed intersection. The angle of the cross street meant that two acute corners were totally blind to drivers on either side; fortunately, perhaps, the cross street was one-way. My driver gunned the motor right up to the moment we actually entered the intersection. The light was still red; heavy cross traffic was passing ''with'' the light; and meanwhile, an oncoming dusty black Stalinesque sedan was ''also'' violating ''his'' red light, bulling his way into the throng. We not only cut off bikes, motorbikes, peditrucks, pedestrians, and a bus all moving ''with'' the light; we made a left turn into the cross street, cutting off Uncle Joe. Note that with three wheels, tuk-tuks do not corner like bikes; there is no leaning into the turn. I cannot say whether my American fast-food bred fat acted as ballast, but in any case, we merely slid, and did not roll. Straightened out again, my driver fully opened the throttle and we zoomed down the one-way cross street at about 70 Kph (45 Mph) -- ''the wrong way''. Not only did all the oncoming traffic move aside as we passed, but not a hand was raised, not a toot was heard; I did not even see anyone make eye contact. My driver ignored not only the law of man, not only the signage and local custom, not only the laws of physics; but, head high, ignored the very ''presence'' of any other soul on the street. And everyone else ignored us, too. I arrived at my destination cold sober (and I do not drink). Chinese drivers simply do not have a concept of Right of way. You may drive however you please; and by the same token, you must permit anyone else to do as ''he'' pleases. Contrast a very late night in the city of Chicago, America, near the downtown Ohio-Ontario feeder to the Kennedy Expressway. The streets in that area are one-way and very wide -- I don't know, 5, 6, maybe 7 lanes wide; wider at 3 am, since nobody is parked at either curb. A fool (I assume), or merely some disoriented soul, makes an unwise turn and begins driving down Dearborn, the wrong way, in what would be the far right lane if traffic was permitted in that direction. The street is so wide here, it is almost wider from side to side than the block from Ohio to Ontario is long; it is designed for Crush hour traffic, a million office drones fighting for the relative safety of the suburbs before the lights go out in the City. There is next to no traffic now; most of the drunks are long gone. Yet I see the only other driver on the street flick his headlights and ''swerve'' across 3 lanes to position himself directly in front of the malfeasant; the two of them brake with front bumpers a kiss apart, furiously honking, screaming obscenities at one another. I pass on; I cannot tell you now if firearms were drawn. At first, it seems that the Chinese are smarter. They've been living in crowded cities for a long time, and they've learned that the best way to deal with slight offense is to ''ignore it''. Americans, it seems, are arrogant fools -- creating problems where there are none, bickering over a point that will not make sense even to themselves in the morning. But this does not take into account the accelerating effects of technology. Despite all the good will (or studied indifference) in the world, the tuk-tuk man and I might well never have arrived, and you would be spared this tale. When machines hurtle past one another at speed, there is simply not enough ''time'' for all parties to gradually, with no particular method, edge out of each other's way. Pedestrians completely ignore jostles from other pedestrians, and a shopping basket in the kidneys is not remarked upon. But even slight contact between two moving motor vehicles means a trip to the repair shop, and it takes little to render machines and their drivers permanently inoperable. China's rate of traffic fatalities, ''per car'', is 8 times that of US. [http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-04/12/content_322695.htm] As charming as the first picture is, and as ugly the second, the sad truth is that "just getting along" ''does not work'' -- not with modern technology on the street. The reason American traffic fatalities are so much lower, despite road rage, cheap guns, and disrespect for one another and the law, is that Americans are ''very clear'' on the concept of Right of Way. It has little to do with vigorous law enforcement, although that is a factor. The main control on an American driver is the concerted attitude of ''every other'' driver, any one of whom may defend his Right of Way to the death. This customary Right of Way may be traced to written ordinance, honored in the breach as it is. It keeps everyone moving in roughly the same direction. When there is a dispute, say, at an intersection, even a malefactor is generally ''aware'' that he is running through a Stop sign; if push comes to shove, everyone may assume that he will ''probably'' back down. In China, nobody ever backs down; not on the street. They avoid confrontation as much as possible, but when it is inevitable, there is no way to decide the matter, with or without loss of face, in the short time it takes to crash. I have watched Chinese truck drivers spend 20 minutes rubbing past one another in a narrow alley, leaving streaks of paint on the brickwork on both sides, rather than admit that one must back out and wait for the other. Cyclists crushed by buses are commonplace. * This policy is a noble ideal, and may have been workable at one time, when WP was a smaller community; even now, it may give good advice to a timid newcomer if understood to be severely limited in scope. But now it is a ticking time bomb waiting to be used as a defense in every silly matter. It must be retired -- with honor, but retired. — User:XiongUser talk:Xiong 01:32, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC) ::I am speechless in awe. Wikipedia:Brilliant prose, Xiong. User:UninvitedCompany Co., User_talk:UninvitedCompany 01:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::Excellent essay — I'm not sure if I agree with your conclusion (that Wikipedia needs rules to ensure continued growth and preservation of article quality) but I will admit that rules are a critical mechanism for ensuring uniformity and preventing needless conflict. User:Dcoetzee 02:19, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::wonderful text, but I disagree. As Wikipedia and its policies grow and grow, this rule becomes essential as never before. I gave the german page a rewrite a while ago (:de:Wikipedia:Ignoriere_alle_Regeln), it lacks the beautiful conciseness of the english version but states IMO more clearly what this rule is about: Wikipedia is a project to create collaboratevily an encyclopedia. Rules are just a mean to this end. As a newbie (and even as an old hand) you can't know all the rules which developped here over time, so just use your best judgement and do what you deem reasonable in order to achieve this goal. --User:Elian 02:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) :::Something that might help with the impossibility of knowing all rules is to reduce the number of rules. Then there would be fewer rules for people to ignore, and fewer problems with people ignoring said rules (cf. m:instruction creep). Elian's rules from the German page are a good set; m:Foundation issues is another. For an actual proposal to have rule cuts (hey, tax cuts are always popular, right?), see Wikipedia:Wikirules proposal. While I'm skeptical that the mechanism proposed there is the right one, I understand the feeling behind it. --User:Michael Snow 06:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::Concur with Elian and Michael. And Xiong, that was a wonderful essay; so much so that I hate to disagree with it. But Wikipedia is not a road. No one will get killed if someone doesn't know about yield signs and no passing zones, nor even if they haven't the faintest idea about traffic lights. You can still get where you're going, though if you appear to be terribly clueless some kind soul should (and will, probably, from what I've seen) come by to help you out so you don't keep crashing into oncoming traffic and spoiling everyone else's travels. I'd imagine even in China—though I've never been and know little about it—that those who deliberately disrupt traffic are not tolerated for long. Blatant abusers who will brandish "Ignore All Rules" as justification for their actions can be dealt with, because we as Wikipedians largely have the common sense to distinguish between good faith and bad. ::::The American response to the traffic incident is far worse. It values strict adherence to policy over basic civility, and an ugly one-upmanship on the part of the would-be cop over someone who was at the time hurting no one. Would-be Wikicops insisting on process over product already exhibit some of that same behavior, with the same effect: both parties' tempers flare and nothing productive is accomplished. On the road it is excusable: it's difficult to swing by later and talk to the traffic offender to say "hey, please don't do that, someone might get killed", and one cannot see whether it is someone with a history of disrupting traffic or someone who is just a little lost in an unfamiliar town. Here, it is a simple task. Just my pedestrian opinion, User:Mindspillage User talk:Mindspillage 16:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::::(As a side note, Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset has also been proposed, as an alternative to the above-linked Wikirules proposal.) User:Mindspillage User talk:Mindspillage 16:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) ''Quick answer about real situation, not analogy:'' Chinese drivers tolerate ''everything'', up to and including determined efforts by other drivers to run them off the road. You cannot imagine, until you have seen it, the Chinese capacity to absorb insult without return. Note that once a certain point is passed, reprisal is swift and deadly; but that point is far beyond Western credibility. I got on the ''plane'' shouting, "You can't let Them walk all over you like that!" — User:XiongUser talk:Xiong 18:52, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) == Right of Way explained == Very briefly: I tried to tell a story without introducing my own biases, so now others impute them to me, willy-nilly. I failed to draw what I thought were obvious conclusions. I am compelled to speak. 1. The American system of arbitrating Right-of-Way disputes does not work especially well. : A deranged teen Jolt junkie could program, in a week, a box that would control every automobile on the road, and the rate of crashes and fatalities overall be less than today. It's a relatively simple problem of physics and motion control; the only hairy part is predicting the presence of uncontrolled objects in the roadway. (Note I said "predicting", not "detecting". If the object is already there, it's not so hard to spot. Objects ''not'' in the vehicle's path, which ''may'' cross it in near future, are much more difficult.) 2. The Chinese system of arbitrating disputes worked ''very well'' for thousands of years, during which it was endlessly refined. : My mother, who traveled to China long before I, told and retold a shaggy dog story of her own, which spoke of an intercity bus barreling down a narrow dirt road between two rice paddies. She spotted ''another bus'' zooming toward an inevitable head-on collision; there was simply no shoulder at all, no room on the single dirt track for even two manure carts to pass one another. She squeezed her eyes shut and, being simultaneously an atheist and an Orthodox Jewess, prayed mightily to a god in whom she had no faith. Hearing no crash and feeling no jerk from this world into the next, she looked out the rear window to see the other bus rapidly disappearing in a cloud of dust. Chinese really ''do'' know how to avoid contention. 3. The Chinese system now fails miserably only within the modern, speeded-up environment of the congested city street, full of mixed vehicles and pedestrians, some of which are highly maneuverable automobiles, trucks, buses, and motorbikes. Available reaction time is cut to about 10% of what is available when pedestrians throng along motorless streets; and consequences escalate as the square of velocity of collision -- roughly 10,000% as dangerous for collisions at 10 times the speed of a walking man, and that's neglecting the increased ''mass'' of the colliding vehicles. 4. The ''relative'' success of the American system is not evident during the occasional pissing contests, which merely serve to underpin the concept of more or less absolute Right of Way. It is evident in the innumerable small conflicts which are passed over with hardly a thought, in which one party yields to the other, both parties secure in the knowledge that, given the relative situation, they are each confident of ''who'' has the Right of Way; the dominant party accelerates, the submissive party yields, and all is well. : The pissing contests are the price we pay to enforce the concept of Right of Way. They are true cases of honoring a standard in the breach. In the worst case, when a raging motorist tracks another down ten miles of freeway, draws a firearm, and gets on teevee, every single American who sees the evening nooz has the same thought: ''"One of those guys had the Right of Way, and the other guy stole it."'' Yes, all the viewers also have the same, rational, criticism: "I don't really care which guy was Right and they were both stoopid." But nobody watching thinks the shooting was about anything except who cut who off -- and to have that thought, one must implicitly accept the idea that one driver can cut another off, and that means to steal the Right of Way. The ''concept'' is upheld. 5. Right of Way is a formal rule of the road, a written law of man; but it is also a law of physics: whatever is in a spot first has the Right of Way, since no two bodies can occupy the same volume. It is also a social ''custom'', and most drivers have never even glanced at the book they got from the DMV since they cribbed their written test. \"Who has the Right of Way in this or that situation\" is a lesson learned again and again, over the course of years behind the wheel, taught by one driver to another, and the one-finger salute is not really an insult, but teacher's red pen. Some drivers also require the heavier black marker of the bill from the body shop to underline specific instances of customary Right of Way, and John Law gets his licks in, too -- but the vast control of drivers' day-to-day actions is the vigilance of other drivers: peer pressure. : That said, it ''still'' doesn't work very well. Drivers are essentially ''all'' Anonymous Cowards -- flashy as they may be, as distinctive as their cars may seem, they enter each new conflict as anonymous as an egg. Positive peer pressure only goes so far; it is the naked threat of being rammed that negatively pressures drivers to conform. 6. The Wikipedian is like the Chinese driver, but with American blood. : He began, when WP was small and he knew everybody, and everybody knew him; by yielding gracefully, and indirectly, to others, with no thought for "who is Right". On receiving a minor insult, he just ''ignored'' it. Most times, even two parties with adverse intent simply went ahead as directly as possible, doing nothing obvious to avoid collision, but not provoking it, either. ''This worked very well.'' : Time went by, and the road became more congested. It is a ''feature'' of cyberspace, especially wikispace, that ''all users'' are almost ''everywhere'' almost ''all the time''. There is no such thing as a quiet corner; every street is a main drag, with packs of moto-vandals roaring along, herds of nitro-fueled ''trolls'' shooting up passers-by, and stealthy ''User talk:Xiong'' deliberately altering the signage and standing on busy corners (mis)directing traffic. Not only do some of these troublemakers deliberately ''flaunt'' the unwritten, unspoken convention to avoid trouble and escalation of trouble; there are also waves of ''immigrants'' who simply know nothing, too numerous to educate individually, or even to watch closely enough to identify and distinguish from the rest -- not to mention the ''tourists'' who stop to make a random edit or three. : Wikipedians are overwhelmingly white male American college dropout ex-computer pros, and we reacted in typical white male American college dropout ex-computer pro fashion -- by forgetting all the Cliff-Notes Asian philosophy (though continuing to shout it in most-un-Asian fashion); by running to the thumb-sucking security of ''resort to authority''; by building castles of ever-more elaborate rules, regulations, procedures, tribunals, sanctions, rules, more rules, rules of order, points of procedure, policies, guidelines, more rules, jockeying for high ground, Orwellian sanitizing of history, doublethink (of course), groupthink, clerkthink, and naive pleas for Summer of Love; by descending to the level of the ''trolls'' and ''orcs'', eventually joining their ranks; and finally all join in a hundred choruses of '''"Four legs good; two legs ''better!"''''' : It's a good thing we aren't ''all'' white male American college dropout ex-computer pros; I suspect the 3 or 4 female Mexican high-school grad preschool teachers here are holding the entire project together by the skin of their teeth and when they finally get tired and go home to their friends and families, Bill Gates will come with his team of Men in Black (but no ties), kill it, cook it, freeze it, and laugh all the way to the bank. After the implosion, a hard core remains to sue Gates for his violation of GFDL. ''Guess what?'' He has more lawyers than you do. 7. The best outcome if we continue on this road is that real growth will slow; the membership will level off as the PO'd leave as fast as newbies come in; existing members will spend more and more time in factional conflict and endless refinement of procedural points and puffy debate (like this bit). There will be no new articles on ''Real'' topics, because (1) everyone is already busy attacking, defending, or congratulating each other on not fighting; (2) everyone is afraid to make edits that might invite a reprisal, but for the ''trolls'' begging for one; (3) everyone has exhausted his own personal stock of expertise anyway, and the hostile climate excludes ''serious'' new members -- although the door is still wide open to the Visigoths. ''Fortunately'', there will still be some numerical growth to point at, as hundreds of magical-weapon-foo-in-this-fantasy-universe pages will be copied in from user mans, and sooner or later, Somebody will propose that all Talk pages be added to article mainspace. :''If there are any doubters'' here, I propose a simple metric. We are all proud of the number of mainspace articles, but let us compare ''number of edits'' to articles with ''number of edits'' to all other namespaces -- none of which do the Reader any direct good. Graph this ratio over time. I don't have the tools to do this, especially not stretching back to the beginning of the project -- but I guarantee Somebody does. 8. -- which is Chinese Good Luck -- All is not lost and the project is not doomed. I took one thing away from China, if nothing else: the amazing way in which they are able to ''stubbornly resist'' all change in an area, right up to the point where they ''change everything'' all at once. : We just need to dump all the rules, all the nasty little procedures, all the crutches for little minds, and return to a simple philosophy of common sense, basic intellectual honesty, and good faith efforts to accommodate one another and reach ''consensus'', not simple majority, on matters which perplex us. : Of course, we also must return the size of the community to a point where once again, everybody knows everybody, and ''implicit'' reputation management serves well. And we must do that ''without'' imposing new, Draconian rules which exclude new members or chase existing ones away. : Finally, we must agree on a Wikipedia:Charter -- a simple document that anyone can grasp, with the absolute plainest statement of basic principles, and which is ''not'' subject to debate or revision under ''any'' conditions short of a constitutional convention (political meeting). : Impossible? Well, ''of course''. But then, what isn't? — User:XiongUser talk:Xiong 18:52, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC) Wikipedia:Charter? that's not too difficult: * We are creating a GNU FDL, Wikipedia:NPOV encyclopedia (and not Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). Every action in wikipedia is subject to this goal. * People who want to participate in this project should behave civilly and friendly (follow Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks) of course, the devil is in the details ;-) --User:Elian 02:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: For some strange reason, I'm working on something close to what you're looking for here: Wikipedia:Simplified_Ruleset. Please come over and help out! User:Kim Bruning 12:47, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC) == from User talk:Jimbo Wales == Jimbo, There has been further discussion of the "ignore all rules" rule that User:Lee Daniel Crocker created back somewhere around the dawn of time. Some years ago you had voiced support for that "rule" on its talk page. While the general idea of not getting bogged down in the minutae of policy is still a valid one, I believe that there is today much more consensus regarding, and reliance upon, policy. In this light, I'd like to encourage you to review your support for "Ignore all rules" and see whether it is still appropriate. Kindest regards, User:UninvitedCompany Co., User_talk:UninvitedCompany 15:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Perhaps I should explain what it means to me. It does not mean that it is ok to make personal attacks. It does not mean that it is ok to be a POV pusher. And so on and so forth. What it really means is that, ideally, our rules should be formed in such a fashion that an ordinary helpful kind thoughtful person doesn't really even need to know the rules. You just get to work, do something fun, and nobody hassles you as long as you are being thoughtful and kind. : What we want to avoid is a situation in which people are blasted for petty offenses with rules that they could never have guessed at in the first place. Yes we have style standards for example, but if someone doesn't adhere, we just fix it and leave them a friendly note, rather than yelling at them for breaking a rule.--User:Jimbo Wales 16:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) ---- I think that we should choose a more suitable title and try to rework this page in the spirit of Jimbo's comments. Wikipedia:Treat fellow editors as colleagues, for example (''c.f.'' Collegiality). User:UninvitedCompany Co., User_talk:UninvitedCompany 17:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Nope, I kind of like "Ignore all rules", including the inherent paradox. There's no reason whatsoever why people should just follow rules and refuse to think. In fact, that's the point. :-) (ps. who would have thought that Jimbo was an iconoclast? ;-) ) User:Kim Bruning 18:53, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) :I'm fine with the title as is. But I've added a little more guidance to clue people in on when this "rule" doesn't apply. --User:Michael Snow 17:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) ==www.anarchopedia.org== Just in case you didn't know, this exists.--User:Jondel 09:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Larry Sanger on the origins of this rule == :''Some questions have been raised about the origin of Wikipedia policies. The tale is interesting and instructive, and one of the main themes of this memoir. We began with no (or few) policies in particular and said that the community would determine--through a sort of vague consensus, based on its experience working together--what the policies would be. The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule (to wit: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business"). This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc. In a similar spirit, I proposed that contributors be bold in updating pages (the current version is much expanded, as it should be).'' Larry Sanger http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&tid=95 User:Nyenyec User talk:Nyenyec 20:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) == What????? == What is this page supposed to be? :just ignore it!

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

I

IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |

Words begining with Ignore_all_rules:

Ignore_all_rules
Ignore_all_rules
Ignore_All_Rules_debate