Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules

Supporters of this rule include:

• WojPob
• Jimbo Wales
• AyeSpy
• OprgaG,
• Invictus
• Koyaanis Qatsi,
• Pinkunicorn
• sjc
• Mike Dill
• Taw
• GWO
• NetEsq
• user:anthere
• Lir
• Rotem Dan -- I think encouraging any constructive contributers is fine (as opposed to vandals and trolls), these folks may learn the do's and dont's in the hard way, but possibly lead the 'pedia into new directions..
• TheOmnilord -- If it's obviously bad, it will be deleted.

Opponents include:

• tbc
• AxelBoldt -- deliberately breaking them is fine; ignoring them is not -- ignorance is bad.
• David
• Larry Sanger
• Kaihsu 22:07 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

I say this'll work fine so long as people exhibit common courtesy and don't decide wikipedia is a medium for proselytism. -- JoshuaGrosse

---

It is interesting to think about the dynamics of social interaction within a wiki. Everyone's impact on the medium is, in a sense, exactly equal to their participation in the medium.

As an example, let's take a view which is just obviously wrong to most of us (although someone else might not agree), let's say the view that the earth is really flat. If flat-earthers descend on the site in hoards, then they will eventually win unless pre-flat-earth regulars band together to continually refactor the pages. It isn't necessarily about numbers, but also about how dedicated the numbers are.

On Usenet, the same people argue endlessly for years on end. I know of some newsgroups that I used to be addicted to, where I know that if I went back today, some of the same people would be there arguing the same things they were arguing 10 years ago.

The interesting thing about Wikipedia, though, is that another group might end up with the real upper hand -- those who seek to refactor pages in an effort to end controversy. A statement, for example, of the Scientology issue, that is satisfactory to both sides, would probably be a great achievement, recognized by all as such. It would probably be left alone. :-) --Jimbo Wales

---

I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule. --Jimbo Wales

Well, what about the related paradox that there is no Rule to decide that something is a Rule (and so should be ignored) --OprgaG

I don't know what's going on but I'm sure Kurt Gödel (http://encarta.msn.co.uk/find/Concise.asp?z=1&pg=2&ti=761572232) would have something to say about it.

My MBTI is INTJ[?]. I live to make the rules. :-) <>< tbc

My MBTI is ESTP[?]. I must destroy rules - create m:visions - however I tend to agree with Axel that deliberate disciplined rule-breaking sets useful precedent, but disagree about ignorance - a healthy ignorance of what does not matter is necessary to a happy life 24

---

Jimbo Wales's observation of the 'no-rules' paradox has an interesting implication for wikipedia. As with all real-world paradoxes, this one generates a possibly infinite loop: one person edits a page any way they want, another person disagrees and changes it, the first person changes it back, and so on. Although one of the parties will probably get tired of this loop, the possibility of its existence does imply that those editors who follow no rules will waste their own editing time, and possibly require extra editing time for others as well. When you multiply such infinite loops by the number of such contentious pages, you probably would get a major drain on the encyclopedia's resources. David 11:40 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)

is this a flaw in the NPOV? or a flaw in the software?

---

IMHO, this rule is the essence of Wikipedia, as it reflects the axiomatic supremacy of the individual. To wit, those who need rules can make them up and debate them; those who don't need rules can ignore them. As for the 'no-rules' paradox, and the resulting drain on the encyclopedia's resources, this is a necessary evil. I, for one, have never been a believer in the "practical limitations" of openness. Rather, when I disagree with someone, I state my view and state my reasons, then I do my best to figure out what their view is and the reasons why they hold that view. In the context of Wikipedia, I believe that this sort of debate should take place on talk pages rather than turning Wikipedia articles into ideological battlegrounds. But that's just my personal opinion. Other people are free to ignore it.--NetEsq

---

I wrote this rule and was its first supporter; but I think we have outgrown it. I'm moving my name to the "opponents" category. --Larry Sanger

---

I think common sense is pretty useful. Lir 19:15 Nov 9, 2002 (UTC)