Forum:CT:Ignore all rules

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Ignore all rules


This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was do not adopt an "Ignore all rules" policy. However, since some against voters have expressed their interest in a "use common sense" guideline, I think I'll bring that up for a separate discussion. - Sikon 07:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wookieepedia:Ignore all rules was recently deleted on grounds that "Nobody ever voted for this." So, lets vote on it now.

The policy in question would be nearly identical to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

Vote on adopting this policy

For

  1. Ozzel 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
    Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 03:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. *Shakes fist* —Jaymach Ral'Tir (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. Anarchy! Street riots! Revolution! IGNORE ALL RULES!!! No, it makes sense that if the rules prevent one from improving a wiki, they should be ignored. KEJ 11:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. For. See comments. Wildyoda 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Wikis aren't supposed to be governments, and "legalism" isn't supposed to trump getting things done. That's what IAR is about. Red XIV 03:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Against

  1. Common sense is against this. It's counterproductive. -- Darth Culator (Talk)(Kills) 03:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  2. Weak against: We could replace it with something more like Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Use common sense, which contains the words "Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing," but has a less anarchic feel to it overall. —Silly Dan (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  3. No way in hell. --RedemptionRedemptionusersymbolTalk 03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Silly Dan. "Common sense" is just common sense. -- Riffsyphon1024 03:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  5. Weak against. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Audience Chamber) 03:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  6. Ditto Silly Dan. - JMAS 04:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  7. Common sense. IAR is just counterproductive. Havac 05:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  8. Strong Against. It's license for people who haven't found out what works through lengthy trial and error like we have to apply what they *think* should work to articles. We establish rules for a reason, and those reasons aren't always immediately apparent. If you really think that something against the rules is to the benefit of Wookieepedia, try to get the rule changed, don't ignore it. jSarek 05:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 10:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. Pro-common sense, anti-anarchy. - Lord Hydronium 10:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Weak Against, Pro "Common Sense" Instead per Silly Dan. Orwell said it best: "Break any of these rules rather than say anything outright barbarous." And per jsarek; "common sense" gets you further in the realm of Wikipedia -- the "reality-based community?" Or wikiality, anyway :) Gonk 19:10, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. Use common sense rule. Change rule if needed. Fnlayson 20:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  13. Use common sense. -- SFH 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  14. I don't know any rules that are against common sense. (Maybe capitalizing galaxy and the quality of Palpatine are the only two) It makes sense to be consistent in language (American English), style (in- and out-of-universe, past tense), and content (canon vs. fanon). We didn't make rules based on the idea of a small group of admins, but allowed other users to sound their opinions and vote about them. The consensus of an entire group of people more likely reflect common sense than those of a few people's. History-junkies can think of several examples and consider where they led. - TopAce 15:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  15. WP:UCS over WP:IAR. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 16:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  16. Common sense. WhiteBoy 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
  17. Democracy!!!!! Take that KEJ! Chack Jadson 22:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I'm voting for this on the principle that common sense can work in conjunction with "Ignore All Rules", not only as a substitute. I think IAR policy is actually rather encouraging towards getting more content and testing the validity and intelligence of current policies. So though I don't expect my vote to start outweighing the "Against" votes and actually will not be terribly upset if this stays deleted (and will continue linking to the wikipedia policy since we still supposedly consider ourselves a branch of it) I'd just like to register my dissent. IAR is not anarchy, it is itself common sense. It's purpose is not for people to have anarchy and for people to contribute crap, it's to make the wiki better and remind us that information is more important than rules. Just had to put in the philosopher's bit. Wildyoda 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

  • While I understand the point of the IAR is to stretch our minds and the encycolpedia (which will make it better), I think we need to have rules. But we should always work to have as few as possible. Otherwise, the rules will just keep adding and adding until there is a big fat bureaucracy. And FYI, we've never been a branch of Wikipedia. Very early on, we were attempting to be that, but within a few weeks we saw that was not going to happen, and we became our own identity. Obviously we have borrowed many things from Wikipedia, but IAR should not one of them, IMHO. WhiteBoy 22:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.