Wikinews talk:Ignore all rules

Policy Proposal
This has long been one of the best rules ever on any Wikimedia project, and it's time it was made written policy here - even though it's been an unwritten rule since forever. Obviously it has to be taken with copious amounts of common sense (you could technically apply IAR to IAR, but that's just recursive logic). This is not a "get out of rules-following free card" - please read the essays and links below to fully understand its' meaning before you vote - I'm initiating this because Adambro is otherwise busy :) --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Further reading:
 * w:Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
 * Wikipedia:Ignore all rules edit by Jimbo Wales
 * Wikipedia's "Rules to Consider"

Vote for implementation
While one could argue that this policy has always existed, it's time to get something written down.

Please use to support implementation of this policy, or  to oppose implementation.


 * - It's just simple common sense. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly: I refuse to be part of ANYTHING that says throw our policies out the window. If this is implemented, then we may as well delete every policy we have. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Read the essays, please. If you read them you will understand that what you just said is utter rubbish. --Skenmy(t•c•w) 19:48, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 19:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It takes more than two minutes to read the referenced essays. Please do. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * IAR can also be written as "Apply Common-sense". --Brian McNeil / talk 20:27, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * - Like Skenmy put it, “It's just simple common sense.” If this can help make Wikinews even better, then I see no reason why this shouldn't be adopted as official policy. &mdash; Lasse Havelund (p) (t) 20:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * , as proposer. - Clearly I would hope that people would already be applying common sense rather than sticking blindly to policies where they go against their efforts to improve Wikinews but it appears that it would be useful to have something written down which says that is okay to do so. Adambro - (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * abstain I would prefer it be re-worded to apply common sense (and/or the wording on some rules be changed to reflect they are guidelines not rules). p.s. We seem to be voting on everything recently.Bawolff ☺☻ 00:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Idea: Make this a proposed policy. Make everything else (except for npov, sources, and any policy needed for leagl reasons) proposed policies as well. Why do we need official policies. The whole idea of an official policy is don't go breaking it (which makes making this an official policy rather contradictory). Bawolff ☺☻ 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The whole concept of an official policy is that it is widely accepted. This policy has not yet reached this stage hence it is currently just a proposed policy. However, in this particular case I'd suggest that most editors probably already apply common sense rather than sticking rigidly to policies all the time so there might be a case for saying this is already policy. Adopting this as policy in no way devalues our existing policies. Rather it recognises the limitations of any policy in not being able to cover every possible situation. The idea of this and any policy is not to create yet more rules for people to risk breaking, it is to set down in writing what the community agree is the expected approach to situations. This policy shouldn't change the way in which we work one bit. Policies are still to be followed and respected but editors should be aware, as the already should be, that there can be instances where the policies fail to assist in decision making. Writing something down that says this will hopefully address some editors viewing policies as anything more than a snapshot on community opinion which isn't set in stone. Adambro 12:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * strongly - I think some users will use it as an excuse for edits which clearly break something like NPOV. They could claim it improves Wikinews, i think bawolffs idea is good though. --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 18:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Changed to --Anonymous101 (talk &middot; contribs) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a long standing WP policy and I'm not aware of any real issues with it there. Us having this policy is pretty much a necessity to ensure the smooth running of the project. As well thought out or policies, they can't address every situation and IAR is about recognising this and allowing for discretion when ignoring policies is clearly of benefit. IAR can't be used as an excuse for ignoring policies when contributions don't benefit WN, such cases will be treated as an abuse of this and the appropriate policy and the editor dealt with. Adambro - (talk) 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * basically focus on our mission and ignore the nonsense. Besides if someone wants to use IAR as a defense for something stupid, you can always ignore the rule that stops you from blocking them :P. --Cspurrier - (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While standards serve a vital organizational function, the true mission of this site is to get timely and important news out. Some flexibility in aid of common sense and practicality is essential.
 * . Agree w/ above comments by  and  and others re: common sense.  Cirt - (talk) 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Now policy
Made official policy -clear consensus --A101 - (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

See also section
Closely related guidelines: From w:WP:IAR on Wikipedia. Could these links be added to a See also section at this page? Cirt - (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See also
 * w:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules - Similar page at Wikipedia.
 * w:Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means
 * Wikipedia:Understanding IAR
 * Other versions of this policy
 * w:Wikipedia:Be bold
 * w:Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
 * Sure, done. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and apparently reverted without explanation. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Quotation
The quotation is from William Strunk Jr.'s introduction to the 1919 edition of The Elements of Style, original text on WikiSource. Someone may wish to insert the following at the end of the quote:

— William Strunk Jr. The Elements of Style

Thanks! 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)  Amgine | t 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Heavy Water (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)