Wikipedia:When IAR is ignored

Ignore all rules is one of the more high-profile of Wikipedia's five pillars. It is a controversial policy that many people forget or disagree with, yet it is the tenet on which Wikipedia will stand or fall. Nonetheless, we live in rapidly changing times and cannot afford to solely abide by static policies.

In a way, IAR devalues the other rules simply by existing. It is the Catch-22 to a place that we have set up to be highly process-reliant and structured.

Wikipedia is, of course, an encyclopedia. Thus, when we are focused on writing articles, rules work very well to direct our style of writing, our sources, and what other functions necessary to make a mediocre article great. We mustn't forget, however, that behind that encyclopedia is a community. Unlike articles, which are lifeless digital pieces of text, people are living beings, difficult to understand and judge. In this light, very few rules apply; when they do, there is often a foggy, moral gray area. For example, though we can say that a poorly-sourced article is inadequate, we can't easily say that someone who doesn't assume good faith is a bad person.

Simply put, sometimes we must ignore those rules.

What happens if we ignore IAR?
No doubt, rules are necessary to Wikipedia's survival. Our problem arises when users, especially newer users, believe that rules are the most important part of being a good Wikipedian. We give them this impression by frequently following policy too zealously, by the book; doing so, we are being unfair to new users who are unfamiliar with these policies. New users should be taught the way things work starting with the most important tenets of Wikipedia. Consider this: If the first message new users receive upon editing their first article is, "you have broken so-and-so-minuscule-facet-of-MoS," the chances that they will log in again tomorrow are slim. If they do stay, those users may be seduced into thinking that whoever breaks such a rule is in the wrong...even when the rule may not even apply.

Becoming too closely attached to the rules is also insulting to experienced users. Users who have been here for a good while are familiar enough with the rules to understand their purpose. If what they are doing helps the encyclopedia, experienced users should be trusted to ignore rules that get in the way of their volunteer work.

So what rules should be ignored? It is the spirit of the rule that counts. The basic intention of all rules are to help the encyclopedia; so how are we "helping the encyclopedia" by reverting an edit that was originally constructive, but was deemed "wrong" due to an obscure, overly-literal interpretation of a rule? Warning a user for doing something "wrong" will only confuse them and everyone else, and such confusion will also encourage us to make even more rules. This is a domino effect that will make editing harder for everyone, not to mention less enjoyable.

The rules we have cannot ever cover every disaster that could possibly fall. Some kind of action ignoring the rules will have to be taken from time to time to avert a crisis.

Alphabet soup
"Alphabet soup" describes experienced users' seemingly overwhelming use of acronyms (see WP:OMG) when trying to explain policy to new users. It goes without saying that inundating new ears with obscure three-letter acronyms can be quite confusing.

A problem with alphabet soup is that, frequently, the rule is inappropriately linked. Such a practice can magnify the scale of the situation, making it seem to be a greater offense than it really is. For example, let's say a new user says something mildly offensive to me, and I try to "help" and link him to NLT and OUTING. The new user's behavior may indeed violate the civility guidelines, but it is not a legal threat, nor is it something that will damage my life off Wikipedia. By linking to these rules, I'm only magnifying the problem. The new user is offended and becomes hostile; rightly so, as I have accused him of something he has not done. Drama boils, tension rises, and the situation becomes more difficult for anyone else who gets unfortunately involved.

Another problem arises when we become such fans of alphabet soup that we forget the original meaning of the words we are abbreviating. We must remember only to cite rules where they actually apply, so that they do not lose their importance and meaning. Needlessly throwing them around will only make them less valid and more confusing for the new stomachs yet to sample our soup. For example, WP:COI is a guideline. If all we know is that it stands for "Conflict of Interest," we neglect what is actually written on the article for WP:COI. Reading the actual page, we find that COI only applies when a user feels that the subject of the article is more important than the article itself.

We must also pay careful attention to where rules apply. WP:NPOV, for example, only applies to articles. If another user states his beliefs on own talk page, he isn't breaking NPOV as long as his ideas aren't put into the mainspace.

On a separate note, we must not fail to remember that policies are different from guidelines.

Listening to the community
More important than following each rule to the letter is listening to the community. For example, if many editors reach a consensus on your disruptive editing, generally, you should concede even if no rules explicitly forbid you from doing so. On the other hand, if something you are doing does not quite follow the exact words of the rule, but you are absolutely sure that it is something the other users would agree to, then go ahead and do it. Wikipedia is a living, dynamic community, not a lifeless book of rules. Respecting the community's wishes is more important than respecting the rules at all times – after all, this is a wiki and the rules can change if they need to.

In the words of User:Essjay, "Everytime you click 'save this page,' be completely convinced that what you are saving will make Wikipedia a better, more friendly, and more successful project, and if what you've typed won't do that, don't click save."