whatever version we use, it can't be one which asserts that Wikipedia rules are solely for dispute resolution, and which contains huge amounts of POV |
{{protected}} |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{protected}} |
|||
{{shortcut|[[WP:IAR]]}} |
{{shortcut|[[WP:IAR]]}} |
||
Revision as of 04:14, 30 October 2005
One of Wikipedia's rules to consider:
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.
Our purpose here is to create an encyclopedia. The rules exist only to support that purpose. Our policies are meant to be neither straitjacket nor cudgel; they are merely a flexible framework within which we can cope with most common questions and problems. The spirit of our rules is far more important than their letter.
Wikipedians are expected to use common sense. Actions that are reasonable but which contradict a strict reading of the rules should not be penalized, though they may be discussed. Actions that are obnoxious but not expressly forbidden — including the practice of 'rules-lawyering' — will attract censure.
Ignoring all rules is about cutting through bureaucracy and red tape to construct an encyclopedia.
It does not justify actively disruptive or destructive behaviour. Further, administrators should not use it to make up and enforce their own set of rules.
The more IAR looks like a stick of dynamite, the more you should think deeply before setting it off.