Ignore all rules

Last updated

"Ignore all rules" (IAR) is a policy used on Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. The English Wikipedia policy reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia , ignore it." [emphasis in original]. [1] The rule was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger to encourage editors to add information without focusing excessively on formatting, though Sanger later criticized the rule's effects on the community.

Contents

The policy is discussed on other pages on Wikipedia, such as the essay "What 'Ignore all rules' means". [2] It allows Wikipedia users to use a policy to occasionally work around the site's rules without rejecting the entire rule system. A study in 2012 found that in "Articles for Deletion" discussions, which determine whether a Wikipedia article should be deleted, comments were given more weight when they used IAR as justification. Critics of Wikipedia have variously opined that the rule is abused in practice, or should be used more often.

History

Wikipedia was launched on January 15, 2001, [3] with few policies, the intention being that users would determine rules via consensus. [4] : 318  "Ignore all rules" was proposed by Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger on a "rules to consider page", [4] : 318  and became one of the first formal guidelines of Wikipedia. [5] [6] [7] Sanger later said that his intention was to convey that "people should not worry about getting formatting right and getting every single detail of policy under their belts before they started contributing". [6] Having conceived of the rule as a "temporary and humorous injunction", [4] : 318  he rejected it in his later project Citizendium as "other people were taking it seriously". [6]

The original formulation of the rule was: [8] [9]

If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participation in the Wiki, then ignore them and go about your business.

The current formulation of the rule is: [1]

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. [emphasis in original]

Sanger has opined that his proposal of IAR was "ironic", as was his rejection of a formal title and enforceable authority. In Open Sources 2.0 , he describes these things as "clearly mistakes on [his] part", as they prevented him from enforcing rules. Sanger proposes that a "founding community charter" would have aided with issues in the community of Wikipedia, though he believes IAR and other early decisions did "help the project get off the ground". [4] : 329 

Meaning

A flowchart relating to usage of rules on Wikipedia, displayed in the Wikipedia essay "What 'Ignore all rules' means" Diagram of IGNORE.svg
A flowchart relating to usage of rules on Wikipedia, displayed in the Wikipedia essay "What 'Ignore all rules' means"

"Ignore all rules" refers to the idea that a user is permitted to violate a rule on a case-by-case basis, if the rule's application could cause negative consequences. IAR provides agency for an editor whilst protecting the site's set of rules; it augments Wikipedia's bureaucratic structure. It is a logical impossibility, or a paradox, as its inclusion in Wikipedia's set of rules "makes rule violation an expected behavior". [10] : 583–585  It is a variation of the Barber's paradox. [11]

The essay "What 'Ignore All Rules' Really Means" attempts to provide clarification as to the scope of IAR. [12] The policy does not justify any action or prevent users from being held accountable for their edits. It does, however, encourage people to use personal judgement and allow novices to contribute without full awareness of every policy and guideline. [13]

It has been suggested that upon conception, IAR was partially "an admission that early contributors often faced situations in which any extant rule would not make sense". However, as the project developed, this became less relevant and by 2015 it had "become very difficult to find a situation in which no existing rule would apply". [14]

The rule is closely related to "Wikipedia has no firm rules", the fifth of the "five pillars" which summarize the site's "fundamental principles". [15] It also links to the guideline which states that Wikipedia editors should "be bold", [9] an idea which Sanger proposed "in a similar spirit" to IAR. [4] : 318 

A 2008 article notes that though the policy is "only sixteen words long, the page explaining what the policy means contains over 500 words, refers readers to seven other documents, has generated over 8,000 words of discussion, and has been changed over 100 times in less than a year". It evaluates the word count increases of many policies on the English Wikipedia, noting that though the word count of IAR had decreased, when including the supplemental page explaining it, this amounted to a 3600% increase in length since the rule's conception. [16]

Usage in practice

A 2012 American Behavioral Scientist study analyzed the English Wikipedia's deletion process, "articles for deletion" (AfD). It found that IAR significantly impacted the weight of a comment: a page was more likely to be retained if a Wikipedia editor cited IAR in a "keep" vote, and more likely to be deleted if an editor cited IAR in a "delete" vote. The study also found that an article was more likely to be kept if the AfD contained a "keep" comment referring to both IAR and a "notability" policy (a rule on Wikipedia about which topics should have an article). This was not the case for "delete" comments. Additionally, if an administrator referred to IAR in favor of deletion then the article was more likely to be kept. The study concluded that the rule acts by "strengthening the efficacy of the individual and diminishing that of the bureaucracy". [10] : 588–590 

In Joseph M. Reagle Jr.'s 2010 book Good Faith Collaboration he writes that "ignore all rules" is "clever" and has substance of merit, but it "is bound to require qualification", such as that found in the essay "What 'Ignore All Rules' Really Means". [13] McGrady proposed that Wikipedia's "Gaming the System" guideline is a better way to convey the spirit of Wikipedia than IAR. The former guideline forbids users from purposefully misinterpreting Wikipedia's policies in order to undermine their intent, an action referred to as "gaming". [17] McGrady criticizes that IAR is "too abstract and too often misinterpreted or misused, itself a constant subject of gaming". [18]

In his 2015 book Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, Nathaniel Tkacz writes that despite the policy, "ignoring the rules in Wikipedia is not an effective strategy if a contributor wants his or her contribution to stick". Tkacz goes on to say that "Wikipedia does have firm rules", but that they "are not fixed for all time". [19]

In a criticism of Wikipedia's bureaucracy, Dariusz Jemielniak writes that the rule is "knocked over in practice", noting that there are many essays on the site which explain when to use the rule. Jemielniak recommends that a "bureaucracy-busting squad" should be founded to "actively use and educate about" the rule. [20] David Auerbach of Slate similarly writes that "ignore all rules" is hypocritically used by Wikipedia editors to "prevail in debates". [21]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of Wikipedia</span>

Wikipedia, a free-content online encyclopedia written and maintained by a community of volunteers known as Wikipedians, began with its first edit on 15 January 2001, two days after the domain was registered. It grew out of Nupedia, a more structured free encyclopedia, as a way to allow easier and faster drafting of articles and translations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of Wikipedia</span> Controversy surrounding the online encyclopedia Wikipedia

The free online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been criticized since its creation in 2001. Most of the criticism has been directed toward its content, community of established volunteer users, process, and rules. Critics have questioned its factual reliability, the readability and organization of its articles, the lack of methodical fact-checking, and its political bias. Concerns have also been raised about systemic bias along gender, racial, political, corporate, institutional, and national lines. Conflicts of interest arising from corporate campaigns to influence content have also been highlighted. Further concerns include the vandalism and partisanship facilitated by anonymous editing, clique behavior, social stratification between a guardian class and newer users, excessive rule-making, edit warring, and uneven policy application.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Citizendium</span> Online encyclopedia founded by Larry Sanger

Citizendium is an English-language wiki-based free online encyclopedia launched by Larry Sanger, co-founder of Nupedia and Wikipedia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Japanese Wikipedia</span> Japanese-language edition of Wikipedia

The Japanese Wikipedia is the Japanese edition of Wikipedia, a free, open-source online encyclopedia. Started on 11 May 2001, the edition attained the 200,000 article mark in April 2006 and the 500,000 article mark in June 2008. As of November 2024, it has almost 1,436,000 articles with 12,523 active contributors, ranking fourth behind the English, French and German editions.

Wikipedia has been studied extensively. Between 2001 and 2010, researchers published at least 1,746 peer-reviewed articles about the online encyclopedia. Such studies are greatly facilitated by the fact that Wikipedia's database can be downloaded without help from the site owner.

Deletionism and inclusionism are opposing philosophies that largely developed within the community of volunteer editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. The terms reflect differing opinions on the appropriate scope of the encyclopedia and corresponding tendencies either to delete or to include a given encyclopedia article.

In the English version of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, notability is a criterion to determine whether a topic merits a separate Wikipedia article. It is described in the guideline "Wikipedia:Notability". In general, notability is an attempt to assess whether the topic has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" as evidenced by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic". The notability guideline was introduced in 2006 and has since been subject to various controversies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Larry Sanger</span> American Internet project developer and Wikipedia co-founder

Lawrence Mark Sanger is an American Internet project developer and philosopher who co-founded Wikipedia along with Jimmy Wales. Sanger coined Wikipedia's name, and provided initial drafts for many of its early guidelines, including the "Neutral point of view" and "Ignore all rules" policies. Prior to Wikipedia, he was the editor-in-chief of Nupedia, another online encyclopedia. He later worked on other encyclopedic projects, including Encyclopedia of Earth, Citizendium, and Everipedia, and advised the nonprofit American political encyclopedia Ballotpedia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nupedia</span> English-language online encyclopedia (2000–2003)

Nupedia was an English-language online encyclopedia whose articles were written by volunteer contributors with relevant subject matter expertise, reviewed by expert editors before publication, and licensed as free content. It was founded by Jimmy Wales and underwritten by Bomis, with Larry Sanger as editor-in-chief. Nupedia operated from October 1999 until September 2003. It is best known today as the predecessor of Wikipedia. Nupedia had a seven-step approval process to control content of articles before being posted, rather than live wiki-based updating. Nupedia was designed by a committee of experts who predefined the rules. It had only 21 articles in its first year, compared with Wikipedia having 200 articles in the first month, and 18,000 in the first year.

<i>Good Faith Collaboration</i> 2010 book by Joseph Michael Reagle

Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia is a 2010 book by Joseph M. Reagle Jr. that deals with the topic of Wikipedia and the Wikipedia community. The book was first published on August 27, 2010, through the MIT Press and has a foreword by Lawrence Lessig. The book is an ethnographic study of the history of Wikipedia, its real life and theoretical precursors, and its culture including its consensus and collaborative practices.

This is a list of books about Wikipedia or for which Wikipedia is a major subject.

Conflict-of-interest (COI) editing on Wikipedia occurs when editors use Wikipedia to advance the interests of their external roles or relationships. The type of COI editing that compromises Wikipedia the most is paid editing for public relations (PR) purposes. Several policies and guidelines exist to combat conflict of interest editing, including Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and the Wikimedia Foundation's paid-contribution disclosure policy.

<i>Common Knowledge?</i> 2014 book by Dariusz Jemielniak

Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia is a 2014 book about Wikipedia's community of contributors. The author is Dariusz Jemielniak, who is a Wikipedia contributor himself.

CheckUser is a function of a wiki that investigates the IP addresses of an account to enforce blocks. Together with manual inspection, it assists in uncovering illegitimate behavior such as spam. This protects the wiki from disruption by any particular group or individual. It can also show all edits from an IP including those by registered users.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Predictions of the end of Wikipedia</span> Theories that Wikipedia will break down or become obsolete

Various observers have predicted the end of Wikipedia since it rose to prominence, with potential pitfalls from lack of quality-control or inconsistencies among contributors.

Ideological bias on Wikipedia, especially in its English-language edition, has been the subject of academic analysis and public criticism of the project. Questions relate to whether its content is biased due to the political, religious, or other ideologies its volunteer editors may adhere to. These all draw concerns as to the possible effects this may have on the encyclopedia's reliability.

In Wikipedia and similar wikis, an edit count is a record of the number of edits performed by a certain editor, or by all editors on a particular page. An edit, in this context, is an individually recorded change to the content of a page. Within Wikimedia projects, a number of tools exist to determine and compare edit counts, resulting in their usage for various purposes, with both positive and negative effects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deletion of articles on Wikipedia</span>

Volunteer editors of Wikipedia delete articles from the online encyclopedia regularly, following processes that have been formulated by the site's community over time. The most common route is the outright deletion of articles that clearly violate the rules of the website. Other mechanisms include an intermediate collaborative process that bypasses a complete discussion, and a whole debate at the dedicated forum called Articles for deletion (AfD). As a technical action, deletion can only be done by a subset of editors assigned particular specialized privileges by the community, called administrators. An omission that has been carried out can be contested by appeal to the deleting administrator or on another discussion board called Deletion review (DRV).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Disputes on Wikipedia</span>

Disputes on Wikipedia arise from Wikipedians disagreeing over article content or internal Wikipedia affairs, which can be discussed on talk pages, as well as from user misconduct. Disputes may result in repeated competing changes to an article, known as "edit wars", and may escalate into dispute resolution efforts and enforcement. Wikipedia editors may dispute numerous articles within a contentious topic that reflect debates and conflicts in society, based on ethnic, political, religious, and scientific differences.

References

  1. 1 2 Editors of Wikipedia (November 3, 2024). "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules". Wikipedia . Wikimedia Foundation . Retrieved November 4, 2024.
  2. ↑ "Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means", Wikipedia, archived from the original on 2019-10-26, retrieved 2019-10-24
  3. ↑ Kock, Ned; Jung, Yusun; Syn, Thant (2016). "Wikipedia and e-Collaboration Research: Opportunities and Challenges" (PDF). International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC). 12 (2): 1–8. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 27, 2016.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 DiBona, Chris; Stone, Mark; Cooper, Danese (October 21, 2005). Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution. O'Reilly Media. ISBN   978-0-596-55389-0.
  5. ↑ Schiff, Stacy (July 31, 2006). "Know It All: Can Wikipedia conquer experience?". The New Yorker . Archived from the original on September 30, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  6. 1 2 3 Havenstein, Heather (April 2, 2007). "Wikipedia founder rejects his 'ignore all rules' mantra in new online project: Larry Sanger launches Citizendium". Computerworld . Archived from the original on May 26, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  7. ↑ Anderson, Jennifer Joline (2011). Kesselring, Mari (ed.). Wikipedia: The Company and Its Founders . Technology Pioneers. ABDO Publishing. ISBN   978-1-61714-812-5. LCCN   2010037886. OCLC   767732162.
  8. ↑ "Wikipedia:Ignore all rules", Wikipedia, 2002-04-17, archived from the original on 2020-09-22, retrieved 2019-07-19
  9. 1 2 Ayer, Phoebe; Matthews, Charles; Yates, Ben (2008). How Wikipedia Works: And How You Can Be a Part of It. No Starch Press. pp.  46–47, 448–51. ISBN   978-1-59327-176-3.
  10. 1 2 Joyce, Elizabeth; Pike, Jacqueline C.; Butler, Brian S. (December 26, 2012). "Rules and Roles vs. Consensus: Self-Governed Deliberative Mass Collaboration Bureaucracies". American Behavioral Scientist . 57 (5): 576–594. doi:10.1177/0002764212469366. S2CID   147098248.
  11. ↑ ADMIN (June 15, 2016). "'Ignore all rules' paradox". Ask a Philosopher. Archived from the original on December 4, 2020. Retrieved June 25, 2019.
  12. ↑ "Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means". Wikipedia . Wikimedia Foundation. July 21, 2018. Archived from the original on October 22, 2021. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  13. 1 2 Reagle Jr., Joseph M. (2010). Good Faith Collaboration: The Culture of Wikipedia. MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-01447-2. LCCN   2009052779.
  14. ↑ Aaltonen, Aleksi; Lanzara, Giovan Francesco (2015). "Building Governance Capability in Online Social Production: Insights from Wikipedia". Organization Studies. 36 (12): 1649–1673. doi: 10.1177/0170840615584459 . hdl: 10535/10559 .
  15. ↑ "Wikipedia:Five pillars". Wikipedia . Wikimedia Foundation. July 31, 2018. Archived from the original on July 7, 2022. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  16. ↑ Butler, Brian; Joyce, Elisabeth; Pike, Jacqueline (2008). "Don't look now, but we've created a bureaucracy". Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. p. 1101. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357227. ISBN   978-1-60558-011-1. S2CID   15211227.
  17. ↑ "Wikipedia:Gaming the system". Wikipedia . Wikimedia Foundation. July 24, 2018. Archived from the original on June 28, 2024. Retrieved August 15, 2018.
  18. ↑ McGrady, Ryan (2009). "Gaming against the greater good". First Monday . 14 (2). doi: 10.5210/fm.v14i2.2215 .
  19. ↑ Tkacz, Nathaniel (2014). Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness. University of Chicago Press. ISBN   978-0-226-19244-4.
  20. ↑ Jemielniak, Dariusz (June 22, 2014). "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia". Slate . Archived from the original on September 10, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
  21. ↑ Auerbach, David (December 11, 2014). "Encyclopedia Frown". Slate . Archived from the original on December 13, 2014. Retrieved August 11, 2018.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.