 | This is anexplanatory essay about theWikipedia:Ignore all rules policy. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editing Wikipedia is all about making improvements, not following rules. However,WP:IAR should not be used as a reason to make unhelpful edits. |
| “ | If arule prevents you from improving or maintainingWikipedia,ignore it. | ” |
| — Wikipedia:Ignore all rules | ||
"This policy, at its core, exists so that editors can make contributions, implement decisions, and take actions to improve or maintain Wikipedia, and without having to worry about every single rule, guideline, standard, esoteric courtesy, norm, nook, or cranny getting into the way. Following Wikipedia's policies, rules, processes, and guidelines is a very important thing to do in normal settings. However, when situations occur that are outside the normal setting and require our attention, or when opportunities arise that will make the normal setting better or more efficient, rules and red tape will sometimes need to step aside and take a seat so that thethe right thing to do can be done.
In the end, the only question that one should need to ask is:"will this action or change I'm about to execute bethe right thing to do for this project?"
Don't be afraid, don't flood your mind with'what ifs', and don't paralyze yourself with endless questions like'what about this rule or that one?' ...andby God, don't just sit there!If the answer to that question isyes,DO IT."
— Oshwah
"By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist."
"Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind."
You do not need to read any rules before contributing to Wikipedia. If you do what seems sensible, it will usually be right, and if it's not right, don't worry. Even theworst mistakes are easy to correct: older versions of a page remain in therevision history and can be restored. If we disagree with your changes, we'll talk about it thoughtfully and politely, and we'll figure out what to do. So don't worry.Be bold, and enjoy helping to build this free encyclopedia.
"A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities."
"The code is more what you call 'guidelines' than actual rules."
"Be a sinner and sin boldly"
Ignore all rules is one of the oldest rules on Wikipedia, written byLarry Sanger in 2001. Theoriginal wording was a bit different from today's version. It said:"If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."
Note that while ignoring all rules is all right, it is subtly but importantly different from deliberately breaking them. Meditate on that carefully before you actually apply this rule.
"Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery."
Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules havezero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.
"Give me the judgment of balanced minds in preference to laws every time. Codes and manuals create patterned behavior. All patterned behavior tends to go unquestioned, gathering destructive momentum."
"Rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men."
"Rules are for fools."
Wikipedia has many policies or what many consider "rules". Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable tousecommon sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause a loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't reference a bunch ofshortcut links to official policies. Theprinciple of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter.Editors must use their best judgment.
Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.
Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.
"The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling."
When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument onexisting agreements,community foundation issues, and theinterests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance.
Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, "it seemed likecommon sense to me", you should be careful not to imply that other editors arelacking in common sense, which may be seen asuncivil.Wikipedians come from diverse ethnic, religious, political, cultural and ideological backgrounds and have vastly different perceptions. Other editors are likely to ascribe very different meanings and values to words and concepts than you, so try to state your arguments as fully as possible. Citing concretepolicies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that.
Suppose you have an idea…
..there was no need for precedents, as each case was taken up on its merits. He clung to his principle that rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind.
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée; car chacun pense en être si bien pourvu, que ceux même qui sont les plus difficiles à contenter en toute autre chose n'ont point coutume d'en désirer plus qu'ils en ont.[Common sense is the most widely shared thing in the world; everyone thinks they are so well equipped with it, that even those who are the most difficult to please in anything else are not in the habit of wanting more than they have.]
Ces règles ne sont que des barrières pour empêcher les enfants de tomber.['These rules are merely barriers to keep children from falling."]