On 9/19/05, Sam Korn <smoddy(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On the contrary. IAR is crucial to Wikipedia,
because it allows us a "common sense override".
This means that we can always act in the best
interests of the encyclopaedia, even when it is not
directly allowed in policy.
IAR is a vital part of the "Wiki" part of
Wikipedia, just as NPOV is vital to the "pedia".
I agree with the principle that common sense should
trump bureaucracy, etc., but I have never really liked
the way that IAR is expressed. (When was the last
time the average person read it, really?) The current
text reads:
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.
This sounds like the kind of thing one would feed to a
newbie to help them relax, despite which I have never
seen a newbie cite it. By contrast there are plenty
of admins who will cite IAR to justify various
actions. I would like to hope that none of them were
doing it because they were "nervous or confused". As
a policy statement, IAR really ought to say something
more along the lines of: The ultimate goal of
Wikipedia is create an encyclopedia. The community
may choose to ignore any rules if they happen to
conflict with this goal.
Maybe having the fluffy stuff is good too, but if IAR
is going to be a core principle is should more clearly
state when and why admins choose to ignore all rules.
-DF