User:Intelligentsium/Living consensus

The principle of consensus, the collective form of decision-making that "involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines", is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia philosophy. However, the policies and guidelines are also not fixed; with few (but noteworthy ) exceptions, all Wikipedia policies can be amended by the community. As the world changes, as Wikipedia changes, as new information comes to light and controversies play out, and even as Wikipedia's editor demographics change, consensus will change.

One of the most misunderstood policies on the project is WP:Ignore all rules. Despite the name, IAR does not give users licence to oppose consensus. Users are given leeway to ignore rules, but the rules (policies and guidelines) are like a Magritte - the best static representation of a dynamic and living consensus. Rules cannot account for every eventuality, nor should they try to. A consequence of this fact is that ambiguities will inevitably arise, cases not covered by any existing rule, or cases in which following the existing rule to the letter would be absurd. The standard approach in such a case is to initiate a discussion, and for actions likely to be controversial, this is the best approach. However, the encyclopaedia is not static either - fully-developed discussions require the time and attention of many editors, while editing happens in real-time.

For some actions, the result of such a discussion is evident a priori to editors, even if not explicitly codified in the rules. IAR simply means that users have the ability to use their good faith best judgement to assess where consensus would lie in the spur of the moment, and BOLDly act on it without necessarily formally soliciting comment from other users beforehand.

However, it is worth noting that IAR should only be applied once per case. If someone objects or reverts, it just means the original user's "best assessment" was wrong. And it's OK to be wrong - as long as the next step is discussion, not a re-revert.