Wikipedia talk:Process is important/Archive 1

Origin
I wrote this after having too many interactions with people who were IMO far too willing to ingore process in favor of what they regarded as a better short-term result. Lots of these people ahve been admins involved in deletion decisions -- both ways, and on multiple fora. This is also in part a response to opnions often aired at Wikipedia Talk:Ignore all rules, and by those citing WP:IAR in support of adminstrative (not editing) actions.

In its current form this is not sutitable to become a policy or a guideline -- it offers no rule for action. But it is my hope that this will gain significant widespread support, and that people will consider this when considering out-of-process actions, and point to it when discusing the merits of such actions. DES (talk) 16:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Reactions

 * I salute you. This is a very good essay. One thing which we could add (or have in a separate essay) is the difference between the original IgnoreAllRules idea (which I very much support) and administrator action which goes against not only process but also the opinions of a large part of the community. - Haukur 17:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I didn't do that because i think that even out-of-process action which is supported by a majority is toxic to the project. It gets people in the habit of acting out-of-process. It is also common for people to mis-estimate how much support there is for a particular action. Also if out-of-process actions are common, so that the written policies can not be relied on, the only way for a newcommer to learn the rules is to watch actions and see what gets reverted and what stands. DES (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Boo. Hiss. -Toptomcat 22:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree... to a point
I do agree with most of this document. However, I think "other than in truly emergency situations" should be "other than where it is reasonably clear that the good of the encyclopaedia directs otherwise". A solid rule is a bad rule, at least on Wikipedia. [[Sam Korn ]] 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that I have seen so many peole claim that they are taking out of process action for the "good of the encyclopaedia". Most iof not all such people belive this in good faith, and are quite conviced that this is "reasonably" (indeed usually "very") clear. Often people will misestimate how much disagreement therye will be with such an action, and even where there is not disagreement, I think there is long-term harm to the project. The cases where the "good of the encyclopaedia" requires not only that action be taken, but that it not wait for process, are IMO much rarer than many people seem to think. "Don't just do something, stand there (and discuss first)!" "Fools rush in..." etc. DES (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * besides, this isn't being presentd as a rule, but rather as a phiosophy, a guide that people ought to consider before acting. DES (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I realise that. I was just saying that I mostly agree with you. I am trying to say that the rule should be (in general) that most people would rationally come to the conclusion that it was for the good of the encyclopaedia.  I agree that IAR is abused.  [[Sam Korn ]] 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Much agreed. The issue with breaking rules where it is reasonably clear that the good of the encyclopaedia directs otherwise is that it often is most "clear" to the person taking the action and not so clear to the rest of the community :)
 * In cases where there is in fact a consensus for doing something and people agree that the normal procedure for doing it is unnecessarily cumbersome then, certainly, speedy let's do it is a valid option. - Haukur 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Aye, hence people should be more careful with it. It's amusing that I've been opposed for ArbCom because I am too much of an "IAR liberal".  Curious.   [[Sam Korn ]] 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Heavens, I fear we are in violent agreement. I am just jaded about "speedy let's do it" because I think it leads to a slippery slope, as above. If it were really possible to keep it confined to the occasional and the clearly consensus-supported, I wouldn't be so opposed. DES (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about "clearly consensus-supported". I make emphasis on "would" and "rationally".  There will not always be time to discover consensus.  However, it will normally be clear. Where it isn't, there should be a discussion first.  [[Sam Korn ]] 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. DES (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we all more or less agree :) The problem is with people who break rules to do something which they know perfectly well there is no consensus for. They're almost always acting from the best of motives but the encyclopedia is better served in the long run by placing importance on discussion, consensus and &mdash; yes &mdash; process in disputed matters. - Haukur 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Words to live by
I think this is an excellent guideline and I hope that we can eventually make it policy and deprecate WP:IAR. A maxim like "ignore all rules" just doesn't scale, and is utterly unworkable in an online community the size of Wikipedia. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I more or less agree. But I removed the proposed tag Ambi added, at least for the time being. Even if we eventually decide to make this a proposal we'd have to tidy it up some before it'd ready. Meanwhile I'm perfectly happy with having this as an essay and I've taken to linking to it.


 * The danger with a premature proposed tag is that people might come, object to some difficulties in the wording and before you know it this has a rejected tag nailed to it before it ever got off the ground. And as DES said it really doesn't read as a policy. A policy which tells you nothing but to follow policy makes as much sense as a rule which tells you to ignore all rules. Hey, wait... - Haukur 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, however, a proposal, albeit a formative one. People are already trying to claim that it is policy because it lacks the warning tag (as the whatlinkshere shows). Considering the obvious intent of the comments here, to claim that it isn't a proposal is to be disingenous. Ambi 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * When I link to it I'm not claiming it's policy - I'm just linking to an essay I agree with (but one which still needs work). If the problem is that the category down at the bottom isn't visible enough then, okay, I'll add some sort of disclaimer. - Haukur 09:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. All better? :) - Haukur 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine by me. The caveat is there - that's all I asked for. :) Ambi 09:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, great :) Sorry for the misunderstanding and the little revert-war. - Haukur 09:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And vice versa. :) Ambi 10:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * We don't want to deprecate IAR. We want to make it clear that it is often misused.  [[Sam Korn ]] 17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal preference would be to delete IAR and expunge it from the the database in all its revisions, frankly. But I acccept that I am in a minority on that. DES (talk) 17:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy or guideline status
Please note that I said at the top of this talk page "In its current form this is not suitable to become a policy or a guideline". That is why i didn't put proposed on this, because i wasn't even proposing it as a policy or guideline. The caveat now at the top is fine with me. Perhaps we should have a tempalte to match policy and philosophy? I think essay is already taken for another purpose -- how about wiki-essay or wiki-philosophy? DES (talk) 16:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that essay is appropriate. i will add it. DES (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's okay but what ticks me off slightly is that it too strongly implies that these are just the views of one author. In any case having two disclaimers is redundant. If you like it then put it back in and maybe remove mine :) - Haukur 16:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I like yours better, i just didn't want to not use "approved" tags. But you are right -- to discalimers was excessive. DES (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Process or policy?
What are the things we need to *do* to make an encyclopedia?

Originally, our best practices and guidelines were written following what worked. Indeed, they described what needed to be done and how in some particular situation. That's process.

Currently, there's a lot of times where people try to make it so you vote ahead of time on what to do next. You can select representatives that way, or choose between predetermined courses of action, but what you can't do is actually work out the details of what's in procedures.

Procedures works differently. That's a case of figuring it out, applying it, seeing what goes wrong, and go back to figuring how to fix that. This should sound familiar to some people around here, especially those who write procedures for computers. Writing procedures for people is harder, because they're so unpredictable. :-)

So yeah, I'd love to go back to writing process on wikipedia. It does seem that we might need to have some discussion about what we mean by process.

Kim Bruning 01:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewriting all process: now there ' s an idea! [[Sam Korn ]] 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A very good idea! Grace Note 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

What I want to know is, when did ignore all rules become ignore all views? When the rules are ignored because they're a problem for an editor or because the outcome is sure and the process merely a waste of time, it seems to be that process is not important. But when rules are ignored because they conflict with the personal aims of an admin, then there's a real problem, which doesn't disappear because the admin involved, or his or her friends, wave their hands and mutter IAR. Grace Note 04:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's actually quite a good summary of the issue, IMO. Ambi 05:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia as government
Any time anyone uses government as an analogy for how Wikipedia should operate &mdash; either legislatively or judicially &mdash; he loses my support. I didn't volunteer to become a subject of yet another government.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: that whenever any Form of Policy, Guideline, or Process becomes destructive of the End of creating an Encyclopedia, it is the Right and Duty of all Wikipedians to alter, abolish, or simply ignore it. Punishing volunteers for not following "the process," just because it's the process and disregarding the results, is destructive. Process created Nupedia. Ignoring all rules created Wikipedia. ➥the Epopt 19:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a government, and such analogies are of limited value. But IMO any project that attempts to get cooperative action from large numbers of people will have to have some mechanisms in place for avoiding and dealing with interpersonal friction and clashes of views, and many of those are likely to be in one way or another analogous to methods used by government; and lessons learned from what works and what does not in governmental situations are often relavent, although surely not binding. Thus I find such analogies often helpful, if well constructed. of course they are only analogies. DES (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What WP:IAR says is crucial to the constructing of an encyclopedia: It says that if you are doing something constructive toward the aim of creating an encyclopedia, do it. If ever there develops a "consensus" to, say, delete all images of anything sexual from Wikipedia, even if that decision is made through process, I will immediately ignore that alleged "process" and revert any deletion of images. Why? Because we're writing an encyclopedia, and sexual images are part of an encyclopedia. I don't care that that decision was made through alleged "process" - that decision is still wrong and may be freely ignored because it is destructive to the encyclopedia. People lose sight of what this place is. This is not a "community," this is not a "cooperative," this is an encyclopedia. All else is secondary. WP:IAR is a check valve to that end. FCYTravis 19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. The consensus group just uses their power to remove you from any position where you can prevent them doing what they want. WP:IRA doesn't help you other than in allowing you to make a stupidly dramatic last stand.Geni 21:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The consensus group, in that case, would be rapidly overturned by other admins, the ArbCom and Jimbo himself, if necessary. We would only be preventing a destructive act from taking effect until said destructive "process" decision could be thoroughly deprecated. FCYTravis 21:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well said, Sean. [[Sam Korn ]] 20:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * In my view FCYTravis's arguemnt above would have more merit if there had ever been such an obviously flawed consensus decision. I must also note that every encyclopedia has its own policies on what kinds of articels it will include, and wikipedia is no exception. There is no automatic and unchallangable platonic ideal that mandates a particular decision in all cases. While excluding all sexually related content would IMO be foolish and in conflict with the announced core goals, consider the much argued Schools question. If a clear consensus determined that schools had to pass particular inclusion criteria, would you favor a use of IAR to override that decision? What if the opposite decison achieved clear consensus (At the moment as far as I can see, there is no consensus on this issue). Or consider the band article issue. A number of users have proposed in good faith that any band that verifiably exists ought to be included, while the current consensus requires some degree of notability, largely as per WP:MUSIC, and enforces this via WP:CSD A7. Would you support IAR use to restore verifiable band articles so deleted? Who decides when a decision is "wrong and may be freely ignored"? If multiple people with opposing viewpoints take that attitude, what we have is not an encyclopedia it is a revert war or a wheel-war. Those do not help the project. DES (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested edits

 * Process is superior to Product
 * The important thing is for editors to feel that a process has been gone through. The result is of lesser relevance and at most of equal relevance.
 * Wikipedia should have a bureaucracy befitting its size
 * What are we, Uncyclopedia? We need rules, then people know where they stand!
 * Grey areas are evil
 * Everything that can be defined should be, for the sake of certainty.
 * "Judgement" and "clue" are code words for the oppression of editors.

How do those sound? - David Gerard 21:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * They sound to me like someone missing the point, or trying to ridicule an idea he disagrees with. They also sound like large distortions of what this page now says. DES (talk) 21:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For example I don't belive that "Process is superior to Product" I do feel that ignoring process in search of an immediate and local improvement to the "product" usually harms the overall product in tha end, and not infrequently fails to actually improve the product as much as going through a proper process would have. For another example, nothing in the current page says or implies that "Grey areas are evil" or that judgement should not be used -- however unilateral excercises in "judgement" in areas where an agreed process exists (not all areas have one, or should) are IMO often poor ideas. DES (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll play devil's advocate and try to defend some of the strawmen you're attacking :)


 * Process is superior to Product


 * No, I won't actually try to argue that, but in the long run a good process will produce a better product.


 * The important thing is for editors to feel that a process has been gone through. The result is of lesser relevance and at most of equal relevance.


 * Sometimes this might actually be true :) Let's say we have an AfD discussion on a marginal article. Some argue that including the article makes Wikipedia ever so slightly better. Others argue that it makes Wikipedia ever so slightly worse. There's no objective way to tell. In a case like that the result isn't very important - but it can be important for the people involved in the discussion, especially those on the losing side, to feel that the process was fair and that they had a chance to voice their opinion. Keeping contributors happy is important for the encyclopedia.


 * Wikipedia should have a bureaucracy befitting its size


 * Yes.


 * What are we, Uncyclopedia? We need rules, then people know where they stand!


 * Yes, to some extent. Uncyclopedia actually has some good rules we might learn from, though. Check their deletion process for example. I'm not sure it would scale to Wikipedia's size but it's much more lightweight than AfD.


 * Grey areas are evil
 * ''Everything that can be defined should be, for the sake of certainty.
 * ''"Judgement" and "clue" are code words for the oppression of editors.


 * No, I don't think anyone here is saying or implying that :) Our policies and guidelines do, should and will always have a margin for judgment of individual cases. - Haukur 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to warn David Gerard from violating Wikipedia civility rules in making this comment. I have seen him make comments like this on many occassions and they are just completely out of place.  Nathan J. Yoder 08:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Community is Important
Stay tuned for the companion piece to this essay - Community is Important :)

Notice that in the case of the speedy deletion of userboxes the principle product over process was invoked by those carrying out the deletion. But what is the product in that case? It's not (directly) the encyclopedia since the wheel wars were about templates used on user pages. The product is, in this case, the community.

Those in favor of deleting certain userboxes by any means necessary were doing so because they thought that the boxes were damaging to the community. They felt that boxes and categories segregating Wikipedians into religious and political groups could easily be misused and would poison the community.

Those in favor of keeping the userboxes argued (mostly) that allowing users to express themselves any way they wanted with templates was the way to keep the community happy.

Those in favor of deleting the userboxes but going through the normal deletion process to do so figured that was the best way of keeping the community non-poisonous and content.

Everyone was talking about the community. Because the community is building the encyclopedia.

Haukur 22:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Much too long
Whoa is that a lot of text! What are the main things we're trying to say here? - brenneman (t) (c)  23:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That process is important to allow lots of people to work together.


 * "If we tear apart the laws we will also tear apart the peace." - Haukur 23:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not a bad way of putting it. My main point was the title "Process is important" and that "Product over process" is misleading, at best good in the short-term, and often wrong headed. This was written in response to various encounters on policy pages, particularly WP:DRV and the talk page of WP:IAR. I wanted to prtesent what i thought were the arguemtns for thsi view, adn the consequences of it, fairly fully, so that a link to this page can avoid repeatign those arguments over and over. I really don't think it is all that long, and I think all the contetn is useful and worthwhile. No one insites that you or anyone read it. It is an essay, not a policy page. DES (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's too long either. Nevertheless some sort of short bolded summary at the top might not be a bad idea. - Haukur 00:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Scaling
This based on some statistics I've been doing, see also my user page


 * Of all articles. (and including vandals and spelling correctors)
 * 67.20% have been edited by fewer than 10 distinct Users/IPs.
 * 86.07% have been edited by fewer than 20 distinct Users/IPs.
 * 91.90% have been edited by fewer than 30 distinct Users/IPs.
 * 99.21% have been edited by fewer than 150 distinct Users/IPs.

A lot of us have seen too strict adherence to rules hinder particular pages, so we get an intuitive feel that maybe something isn't right there. If you understand that normally only very few people work on a page at all, it starts to make sense.

Ignore all rules may or may not scale, but that is irrelevant, because amazingly and spectacularly, wikis turn out to scale very well indeed.

In conclusion Ignoring most or all rules appears to still be the wisest course of action in 99% of all cases. It's overkill to apply >100KiB of rules to a page that's edited by just a couple of people. This does not mean that you can get away with not using common sense, of course :-)

Kim Bruning 07:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (ps, note also, that the above observation makes the autonomous subdivision concept not just tenable, but obsolete, as wikipedia is already effectively subdivided in most cases) Kim Bruning 11:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, I think this is an important insight. Thanks! --Khendon 12:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Lies, damn lies, and statistics ;-)


 * Of more interest, of course, is the question of breakdowns by category. For example, only a few users may have edited each individual article under, say, Category:Pokemon; but the total number of users who edited any article in that category may be rather higher.  Therefore, simple editing would scale very nicely, while creating common standards for a particular subject wouldn't. —Kirill Lok s hin 23:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

refactored out polluted section
Someone had made a total hash of the evidence based medicine section so I've removed it for now. Someone fix that...

see evidence above

 * But seriously, skip this, see evidence above. (under scaling). Over 900 000 articles were examined. Kim Bruning 11:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How does that illustrate anything? That figure just tells us how many people edited an article, and nothing about process, outcomes... unless I'm missing something? -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have > 100KiB of process, while most pages are only edited by very small groups. Do you maybe see a small disconnect there? (In logic and pragmatism?) Kim Bruning 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that is a total non sequitur. "Most articles don't have many contributors, therefor process isn't important".  What about those few and/or highly contentious articles that do have a multiple editors?  What about the fact that being nominated for XfD (for example) takes only one edit to the article, and then all the drama off-stage?  Do these figures include the talk pages of articles, and what about discussions that take place on user talk pages?  If four editors are having a massive POV pushing edit war on a page that only one other person is editing, your metric would seem to indicate that everything is fine there.  Either there is more to your argument than you're giving us, or it simply doesn't make sense. -  brenneman (t) (c)  22:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that since there's coming up on a million articles where everything is fine, and only a couple of hundred where things are not, why should we tailor wikipedia policies and guidelines to the minority? Note that XFD pages are part of that minority! They have been shown not to scale, and are long overdue for removal. Finally, you don't need 100K of rules to sort out a fight between 5 people. You just don't. I can do that just fine with just a smile, thanks. O:-) Kim Bruning 23:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure. You don't need 100K of rules to sort out a fight between 5 people. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. - Haukur 23:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So now what if I told you that -but for an infitesimal number of exceptions- that's as large as it's ever really going to (semi-trivially need to) get? Kim Bruning 23:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A large proportion of people's effort here is spent on articles like Jesus and George W. Bush, where there is a huge number of editors. But aside from that I don't quite see where you're going with this. We often have a lot of editors with different opinions on something. Process is important to sort those cases out. It's not important when everyone agrees what to do and fortunately that's quite common as well. - Haukur 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, a large proportion of peoples effort here is NOT spent on articles like Jesus and George W. Bush. Only an infitesimal portion of peoples time is spent on that. Understand the numbers. I also have graphs, if that makes it easier to visualise? :-) Kim Bruning 04:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * And, as I commented above, looking at per-article statistics isn't as meaningful as you'd assume ;-) —Kirill Lok s hin 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, let's look at statistics. Can you answer two statistical questions? What percentage of the total number of edits is spent on the top 10% of the most edited articles? How much is spent on the top 1%? - Haukur 09:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a principle from a current ArbCom ruling:
 * Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies, and should never be used in disputes in which the administrator is involved.

Admins have to play by the rules when it comes to actions like deleting articles. - Haukur 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * How is that relevant to say... me? Kim Bruning 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone who signed that principle (and was thus called over to comment!), I must say that it's not meant to be a straitjacket. It means "don't use admin powers as a bludgeon to win arguments", not "you must follow process always even if it's the wrong thing to do". (I really like User:Sjakkalle/Ignore all rules, which I'm going to plug some more. :-) I think that page says what I would say pretty well, so I'll leave it at that.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I like that essay too. And I don't think anyone would argue that process should be followed when everyone agrees that it's the wrong thing to do. Process is basically a way for people to be able to proceed when there is disagreement on something. The case when people agree on what to do is trivially handled in any system. - Haukur 19:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Also note (again, I'm one of the Arbitrators that signed that) that it doesn't mean "policy" in the sense of "the written-down rules that have been agreed by 87.573% or more by some spurious poll, of which the current version is always gospel and should be interpretted literally and exactingly". This page seems to try to be hijacking our ruling to try to make it say that, and that's why it's Wrong(tm) - because, well, process just isn't important, trust is. And, well, this is mistaken in seeming to say that trust is built by repeated application of mind-numbing proceedure.
 * James F. (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just quoted your ruling. I'm not making it say anything it doesn't. Policy is important. It is especially important that admins follow it. See, I'll quote your ruling again:


 * Administrators of Wikipedia are trusted members of the community and are expected to follow Wikipedia policies. Their powers are to be used only for appropriate reasons, as set forth in those policies, and should never be used in disputes in which the administrator is involved.


 * This is basically what we're trying to say here. But rather than engage with that many people are attacking a strawman - like your 87.573% guy above. You sure knocked that one down good :) - Haukur 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hoops
The essay currently says this:


 * Sometimes a process can be a pain in the neck. Some processes demand that editors jump through various hoops to achieve a result. Some can be cumbersome or time-consuming. Some do not deal with particular situations as rapidly as a person might wish. Sometimes going through the process seems unlikely to give the result that a person desires. In all these cases, there is a temptation, sometimes a strong temptation, to act unilaterally, to simply fix the problem. Often this is technically possible on Wikipedia. Sometimes no one, or almost no one, will object.

I think this buys right into the typical WP:IAR rhetoric about hoops and bureaucratic procedures. We should de-emphasize this. Wikipedia processes are largely not excessively bureaucratic. We don't have to fill out forms in triplicate to do stuff. Normally we just, well, do stuff and that's entirely within process.

People who emphasize the IAR philosophy typically try to put up a contrast between some sort of pointless bureaucratic nightmare and a simple easy freedom of IAR. This just isn't based in Wikipedia reality. It's a wiki. You can do things. There are just a few things, like deletion, where you have to make sure other people agree with you and we have processes to streamline that. If you railroad those processes you're railroading other people's opinions and that's not good.

I also think the essay shouldn't insist that process must be followed when everyone agrees about the result - that's going a bit too far for my tastes. But if a single person disagrees then we have a good reason to follow established procedures.

I'll rewrite the above slightly. Feel free to revert or improve as appropriate. - Haukur 19:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you been paying attention at all to the last three sections? :-P Kim Bruning 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Haukur commented in each one so I'm thinking yes? ++Lar: t/c 20:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I forget that irony doesn't carry. ^^;; Sorry. Kim Bruning 23:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Your division of the community into camps is not helpful, and polarises the divisions that naturally exist. Sam Korn (smoddy) 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Bleh. Reworded slightly. - Haukur 20:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Less rhetoric, more evidence (take two)
This edit stretches my ability to AGF. Is there some reason that actual examples of process/IAR are not allowed to be discussed? - brenneman (t) (c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nupedia vs Wikipedia
24 articles vs Special:Statistics. QED. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC) (The previous signed comment has been altered by User:Aaron Brenneman to make the first three words a subsection heading.)
 * So the only difference between the projects was IAR? Hardly QED. - brenneman (t) (c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That sort of sums it up, yes. And add in software that allows one to do that with little to no penalty. Kim Bruning 04:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You could reduce the difference in philosophy between the two projects to pretty much that, I think, yes. --Nick Boalch?!? 09:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's an untenable statement. Experts? Peer review?  This reminds me of the old joke, "Brenneman is a terrible mathematician, he can only do the diffusion equation," "No, he's an excellent mathematician, he can transform anything into an application of the diffusion equation."  If you're trying to claim this and the AfD below as "succesful" applications of IAR, I'll be forced to assume that you cannot provide any more defensible examples.  -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You mean wikipedia is unsuccesful? *blink* Kim Bruning 15:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh! You mean it like that? Well, Nupedia had procedures that said people must be experts, they had procedures for peer review, etc. As you may recall, by refactoring procedures back down, they become more efficient. Tossing them out entirely is an extreme, but occasionally effective form of refactoring indeed ;-) Kim Bruning 16:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To you "Ignore All Rules" seems to mean something like "Wiki is a useful model" which, you know, we agree with :) Most of the times we can just write articles and don't need a lot of formal procedures to do so. We just write them. But for some difficult cases, like deletion, we do have formalized procedures and IgnoringThemAll doesn't work very well. If you delete something without showing a consensus for doing so first then you'll probably have more work cut out for you patching things up than if you'd gone through the consensus-gathering process in the first place. Process is important because we don't always all agree what to do. Process allows us to disagree but still be able to keep working together. - Haukur 22:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. There's a strong correlation between pages where process is important, and pages where the wiki-principle breaks down, to do with the rule of 150. Instead of having a huge growth in policy pages, it might actually be simpler to refactor the <1000 or so pathological cases instead. We can then make do with a much simpler ruleset, and likely everybody wins. Kim Bruning 10:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
(semi-explicit.(see box at top of page))
 * Not an example of IAR. An example of informality as a rule. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I should darn well know when I invoke ignore all rules, and when I don't.;-) Kim Bruning 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplified ruleset
(subverting a commission.)

Policy Trifecta
(explicitly uses it.)
 * Mentions it, yes. Using it as evidence of sucess is recursive. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it uses it too. See the "proto-userbox" on the page, for instance. Kim Bruning 04:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia
Keeping something with 27 "keep", one "delete unless funnier" != good example of IAR. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The rule is to have a deletion run for a fixed amount of time. Short-circuiting AFDs is a typical application of ignore all rules.
 * Please review deletion policy, in particular Deletion_policy. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  03:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the complete ignore all rules cycle, where at the end of an Ignore all rules invocation, the results get written into the guidelines. Kim Bruning 04:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was already in the guidelines. I don't see how this AfD is a good example of IAR in use. Did the rules make the closing admin nervous and depressed? AfDs are often closed early when the result is clear. That's good process. - Haukur 09:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Way back when, when we went 20 miles uphill both ways in driving snow, it was in fact not permitted to close early ever. Repeated application of ignore all rules in cases where common sense was called for eventually led to a modification of the guidelines into the form you see today. Welcome to the wiki! :-) Kim Bruning 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But what gain is made by closing early? None. It simply didn't matter at all whether you closed this one early or not. So if there's absolutely no difference either way, why close early, if it requires the invokation of a contentious principle and perhaps encourages others who would close early on (say) an AfD with a 7-4 vote? Herostratus 19:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

GNAA
Do we have some specifics as to who this applies to this discussion? - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Basically multiple recursive deletion attempts on the article, and on the VFD for the article, and on the vfd for the vfd... etc..., they all got wiped out in one go. :-) Kim Bruning 04:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can only play the opposition for so long... as I recall I was the first person to tell you "good job" on stamping that one out. brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  05:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ed deletes AfD
AfD restored, RfC results. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Snowspinner deletes lots of AfD discussions
AfD restored, RfC results. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Kelly deletes userboxes
Incredible amounts of venom released, most userboxes restored, now almost impossible to delete useless boxen due to "backlash" - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Update: Most userboxes have either been deleted or moved to user space. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * no thanks to your actions.Geni 15:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Only took eight months. ergot 22:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality deletes schools
Schools all restored - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Did he actually do that? Only thing I've seen is him nominating about a hundred schools on AFD over a couple days' time. Large amount of venom spewed, vengeful RFC created. The reaction of school inclusionists was really the same as the reaction of template inclusionists one section up. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 21:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Except school inclusionists are right and template inclusionists are wrong. (This comment is supposed to be funny.) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

When process screwed something up?
To be fair and balancedTM here's a spot to list where process was a mistake. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Simplified ruleset commission
 * mediation committee for all of 2005.
 * Not a mistake per se, but WP:SNOW hath its merits.
 * WP:AMA Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

start of a pattern here
It turns out that ignore all rules mostly has the occaisional problem with the current implementation of deletion. Unsurprising, everything has problems with that. Kim Bruning 04:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're saying that often when someone ignores the current well-organised and overwhelmingly succesful deletion procedure there is a problem, I agree completely. - brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  12:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're saying our current deletion procedure is 'overwhelmingly successful', I think you may need to reassess your understanding of the concept of success. --Nick Boalch?!? 15:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Over 80% of articles are deleted or kept without a single opposing recomendation, and very very few articles of any validity are ever deleted. Even if we accept that those articles which go to DRV and have "out-of_process" wheel wars to restore them represent places where XfD going wrong, that's an error rate of less than one tenth of one percent.  The complaints that XfD has failed are almost entirely apocryphal, and thos instances where it demonstrably does fail are often backlash against lone-gunman IAR action.  Have a look above if you doubt me.  I cannot help but notice there is an inverse correlation between the amount that one complains about XfD and the level of participation in the daily grind of examining articles and making recomendations as to their fate.  XfD is broken?  sofixit. -  brenneman <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(t) <sup style="color:#2f4f4f;">(c)  02:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even jimbo wales is treading carefully. The system is too entrenched. Kim Bruning 11:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

process is a tarbaby
Process is a tarbaby to catch and hold certain types of verbose time-on-their-hands contributors so they do less damage to the actual encyclopedia. Let the process pages expand! Let the mediations and wikilawyering in wikicourts expand to fit the need to distract people who would otherwise be adding their self important unsourced opinions  all over the actual encyclopedia. Letting them play with pretty boxes is a good distraction too. Maybe the boxes should make noises and move (*.gif). distraction is a powerful tool. WAS 4.250 16:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer to mediate between people who are contributing to articles, thanks. Kim Bruning 16:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This page is too long
...and the layout isn't too good. You may want to consider making it more clear and concise. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

A little quote
Something Jimbo said recently:


 * Wikipedia is not "all about process" and such an attitude is absolutely contrary to our longstanding community spirit. Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals. The rules lawyers of Wikipedia are a sickness upon us. --Jimbo Wales

Something to reflect upon, I think. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. i have no interest in being a "ruels lawyer" and i hope Jimbo wouldn't see my actions and positions in that light. If he does, I think he is mistaken. Wikipedia is and should be "all about people". Process is IMO the most imporatnt and useful tool for smoothing the interactions of large numbers of people, for showing and encouraging mutural respect. It should never be used without thoughtfulness or respect for others. IMO respct for the process is respect for the vast group of others who make up the community of Wikipedia. Soemone else wrote on this page that the corallary to "Process is Important" is "Community is Important". I strongly agree. What I object to is people who take unilateral actions, ignoring both process and the views of other members of the communtity, thereby failing to show mutual respct, including respect for the people who created the process and for the much larger number who rely on it to set out a senasible and predictable way to get things done. This page is not "Process is All-important" nor IMO should it ever be, and anyone who thinks that is what is being said here has misunderstood me drastically -- or perhaps i have drastically failed to communicate well. DES (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And the corollary to both "process is important" and "community is important" is "the encyclopaedia is important". All actions are a balance of the three.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Fully granted. Process is a tool, no more. It is a tool used or that should be used, in the interest of furthering the project. The community is a means to the end of writing an encyclopedia. it is my view that without the community we won't have much of an encyclopedia, and without adherence to process we will at best have less of a community. Thus it is my view that "process is important" to the success of the encyclopedia project. Process for itself is pointless, and I have no interst in any such thing. The aim of process, as I see it, is to facilitate the creation of the encyclopedia, and to ease interpersonal interactions to that end. Any process that does not, in the long term, contribute to those ends should be IMO changed or abolished. i simply don't think it productive to ignore ia poor process rather than actually change it. DES (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. In most circumstances, the encyclopaedia and the community will benefit from the application of policy.  That is, after all, the aim of the policy, creating guidelines that are normally applicable.  This isn't an anti-IAR page (and it most certainly shouldn't be); it should be a take-more-care-in-applying-IAR page.  That seems to me an excellent idea. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While this isn't an anti-IAR page, I am an anti-IAR person. If I had the power of decree IAR would be deleted. I have yet to see it cited in support of an action that I thought was wise. Therfore when i see it cited, my first assumption is that the action being taken by the person who cites it is probably unjustitifed. However, a person can strongly disagree with that view and still agree with what has been written on this page, I think. If more people took more care in applying IAR, I would be less opposed to the concept. DES (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There's some examples of good application of ignore all rules on this talk page. Kim Bruning 01:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the examples liste above as "Good" some do not seem to me to be examples of IAR, and others do not seem to me to have been good. It may be that some of the ones I don't think of as IARs nonetheless had IAR cited in their support, which might be a counter-example to my statement above. But as I said above, that is of at best limited relevance to this page. This page does not say "delete IAR" or even "never use IAR" It says that ignnoring process is usually a bad idea, and think twice about the implications, long-term as well as short-0term, before doing so. I think that many supporters of IAR would agree with that view. My personal views of IAR are just that -- my personal views. DES (talk) 01:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, if I apply ignore all rules the way I do, and I say that this is how I apply it, and then you reject that my application of ignore all rules is actually an application of it, I can do nothing for you. Kim Bruning 02:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I winced when I saw the "all about process" line at Quadell's RfC, but I find the opposite viewpoint, which is getting thrown about more and more recently, I think, equally upsetting. As other have said, Wikipedia is big, frequently impersonal, and frequently prone to deal with controversial topics. When dealing with a project the size of Wikipedia, contributed to by so many different people, it's inevitable that common sense, and even occassionally mutual respect, are going to get frayed every now and then. Policy and process exists (or should exist, at least) to provide a means to prevent these occurances from spiralling out-of-control. The balance, as Mr. Korn has so effectively said, is ensuring that policy serves the needs of the project, and that the project doesn't serve the needs of its policy. Trolls hiding behind procedure are no better than trolls hiding behind IAR, after all. My personal attitude is that, generally, if you have to cite IAR in your defense, you probably shouldn't have IARed in the first place, but that doesn't mean that I don't fully support the ideology behind it. One way or the other, Jimbo has hit upon something important: it's all about respect for our fellow editors. If any of our policies aren't helping to make that possible, that's a problem that should be addressed. – Seancdaug 18:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we had it addressed earlier on, and then people started playing wikinomic (aka. Calvinball) in the project namespace, so in the end, you need to sort of guesstimate your way around. Also hence why this page is a slight problem :-P Kim Bruning 22:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually i think Calvinball and nomic are different, indeed opposite, problems, and I am far more afraid of Calvinball (althoguh neither is good for the project). Nomic is playing with the rules to no end except for the fun of it. (Actually the original Nomic was an attempt to model/simulate governance systems, starting from a consensus system, and having been through a few sessions of noimic IMO helps make people more aware of what works and what doesn't in rulemaking. But wikipedia should not be a game of nomic.) Calvinball is really anarchy -- anyone can change the rules at any moment for immediate gain, or on a whim, and no one can rely on any rule at all. It is my feeling that incautious use of IAR would mire us deep in Calvinball, and that is exactly where I don't want to be. Overly strict adherence to processes and rules, particualrly if they were hard to change, would also have soem very undesireable results, but i think we currently tend to err much in the opposite direction. Indeed the equation of Nomic and Calivinball seems to me to indicate vastly missing the point, or perhaps simply not having thought about one's analogies very closely. DES (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Errr, Calvinball is typically seen as just a nomic you play in the real world with some balls and cones and whatever else takes your fancy (see the nomic article under variants). It's definately not anarchy. Currently the wikipedia: namespace is a game of nomic for all intents and purposes, and has been described as such by many people (yes, including Jimbo :-P) . This has a great distorting effect.


 * To help get a better grasp of our own processes, we played Calvinball at wikimania.


 * The most interesting thing that showed up when playing calvinball was that it was possible to halt the game by chosing contradictory rules. This is a situation that can easily occur by accident.


 * Having an Ignore All Rules metarule allows you to step outside the game and remove or avoid the offending rule(s) for a while, while fixing the problem.


 * This is why I insist on having ignore all rules. Your first experience with ignore all rules was when it was applied in such a situation on en.wikipedia itself. Note that in that situation, the action ended up being backed up by a steward!
 * Kim Bruning 12:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see the Wikipedia: namespace as different from Nomic. In nomic, the game consists of altering the rules, etc.  When we edit a policy or guideline in the Wikipedia namespace, however, we haven't altered the rules.  We may have described them better or worse, but the rules remain nothing more than (a)Use common sense and (b)courtesy to (c)write a neutral encyclopedia (d)using a wiki.  All of the policy and guideline pages are just essays and exegeses on those basic ideas, and changing the text of one of those pages isn't like making a rule change in nomic, where it's binding, at least until it's changed again.


 * Does that make sense? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:50, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

picture
I added four pictures, mainly (but not entirely) to make the whole thing easier on the eyes. Herostratus 20:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC) I thought it would be easier to put them in and let people complain about them than discuss it first, cuz its layout which is easier to discuss if you can see it. If ppl don't want them, say so, of course. Herostratus


 * Whimsical and fun. Thank you :) - Haukur 20:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I loved the encyclopedia example. Somehow I wonder though, wasn't our strength precicely that we can make something of similar quality with a lot LESS oversight? Kim Bruning 22:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting and not unsensible choices, IMO DES (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

added note not to cite this as policy
I've added this because, guess what! Someone did just that!

(I tell you, sometimes the degree of tough love some of the community need would be a waste of falling anvils) - David Gerard 00:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Would you rather that they copied and pasted the essay? Even if it's not policy, people may still choose to use it as a justification for their positions on various discussion pages. <TT>Crotalus horridus <SMALL>(TALK • CONTRIBS)</SMALL></TT> 06:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not a citation as policy. That is citation of the argument by reference, just as people often link to the Schools page to explain the reasons for an opniuon without rehashing the entire issue. DES (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh for goodness sake. How about all the people citing WP:SNOW? Anyway, I copied over your revision of the notice to WP:SNOW... after proposing to do so on the talk page, and waiting a decent interval to see if there were any objections, which there were not. Oops, was that a... process? Must have lost my head... Herostratus 05:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And the Golden Center?
How about a policy that says that Process is Important, but in some situations it's better to IAR? &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  04:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope. If you need something tell you there is a time to IARs then you shouldn't be doing it.Geni 04:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Or excuse me...not policy, but something like this. The way this reads, we should be bureaucratic mindless drones following only policy. &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  05:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is stating the obvious, but all actions involving citation of IAR are subject, like all reversible Wikipedia actions, to potential revision by the community. This creates implicit unwritten rules about the application of IAR. The question is, if it is necessary to ignore rules to achieve something (rather than, say, reinterpret them), doesn't this indicate that the rules are broken and should be fixed rather than ignored? Perhaps someone feeling the need to cite IAR should also suggest revisions to the rules to the prevent the need for its citation in similar situations in future. If nothing else, it's a useful thought experiment - if you're not willing to make your IAR application a precedent, you probably shouldn't do it. Rd232 talk 15:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, this page isn't policy, nor proposed policy. it is an essay suggesting arguments for not ignoring procvss when there is relevant process. Nowhere does it suggest being a "bureaucratic mindless drone". If a given process is overly bureaucratic, propose a change to it to make it more flexable or more useful. There is no "process" for most content editing, so this hardly applys to that sort of action. If most people who used IAR also suggested policy improvements, as Rd232 suggests above, things might be better, it's worth thinking about. This page nowhere says that you can't use IAR, it merely says "here are some reasons why it might well be better to go throguh a process when one exists, rather than ignoring it or evading it" DES (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Per tradition, after applying Ignore All Rules, it is important to note down what you did, so others can indeed use it as precedent. Kim Bruning 20:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

People applying Process Is Important should ask permission first, or else be banned, per WP:BOT
Hmm, let's try an extreme position and see where it leads. Don't yell at me for acting crazy. I've heard people joke about this position, and I'd just like to go over it and see how defensible this position actually is.

Because people applying process strictly are essentially indistinguishable from bots, according to Alan Turing we should probably treat them in the same fashion, as per WP:BOT

Would that be a sane position to hold? Why or why not? Kim Bruning 20:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * permission for what, from who? define your parameters... Rd232 talk 21:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Permission to run a bot ;-) Kim Bruning 04:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, no, that wouldn't be a sane position to hold... it would be more like... let me think... I've got it! insane''! Not just insane but (cue Crazy Eddie) INSAAAAAAAAANE! Why?  Because... well, really, I've got somebody who can say it better than me.  Ready, Crazy Eddie? Because it would be... INSAAAAAAAANE!!!!


 * LOL. Sheesh Bruning let it go for chrissakes. The last thing we need with all the new users coming in to be telling ppl Hey! There's no process! Why?  Because our process is not just low... it's ''INSAAAAAAANE!!!!' Herostratus 04:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're yelling at me anyway :-P
 * The thing is, the reason we have humans on this site at all, is because humans posses common sense, which bots don't. On the other hand, seeing the responses so far, perhaps we should ban the users after all, and let the bots do the work . Kim Bruning 04:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There are large grey areas in policy and areas policy simply does not conver.Geni 10:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. I think that the problem with bots, and the reason for the bot policy, is not that they're rule-governed but that they are dangerously efficient.  Humans are also sometimes dangerously efficient, which is why I think a single dedicated idiot can do more damage to Wikipedia than a hundred vandals.  Yes, efficient people should be required to seek community consent before unleashing themselves.  It's only fair.  :-) -- Visviva 07:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want to say...
This page brings a joyous tear to my eye. I can't think of any other namespace page that I agree with more than this. MUCH kudos to everyone who contributed in writing this. -- Hinotori(talk) 00:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

IAR abuse
The problem with IAR is that it can be used cyclically (circular logic) to justify anything. How do you actually justify an application of IAR? At the extremes you have jusitification through a dictatorial process ("I am right; you're all wrong!") and super consensus (100% support). [I'll note that even using consensus to justify it isn't truly IAR. IAR requires ignoring ALL rules, not SOME rules. True IAR would be unavoidably circular, so I'll disucuss the de facto IAR which is "ignore some rules.]

If IAR exists, then its application should be inversely proportional to the controversy in the issue involved. Process exists as a tool to help prevent abuse; this is why many governments and government-like structures (of which ALL large websits are) use it. It allows the end result to be more objective and balanaced and avoid the dictator secenario (which is very antithetical to consensus). Being opposed to any government-liek structures means literal anarchy support (which is, by definition, lack of government). The people who l iterally support that are extremely rare, so even the people who say they're opposed to makingi t government like actually are and don't even realize it.

It's true that for (just picking a random number) 90% of articles most process doesn't matter, but process we have process mostly for the other 10%, not the 90%. Therefore, process exists to help Wikipedia function during controversy, so ignoring it during controversy is against its very purpose. Otherwise IAR becomes a tool for the most powerful people to bludgeon their opponents with. Does any truly think that IAR should be applied in controversial situations?

So far I have not seen a single good argument against this page, nor even one that qualifies as quarter-decent. I've see several logical fallacies (ad logicam, ad hominem, strawman, question begging, non-sequitur, etc...) and even a civility violation. It seems quite clear from the opposition's inability to form a cogent argument that even they realize that their position is truly indefensible. This is not surprising as the biggest opponents of this support the dictator mindset wrt to Wikipedia and expect people to accept their word as right without justification.

Nathan J. Yoder 08:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As part of the 'opposition', here's my attempt at a cogent argument: process is always evil. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need any process: Wikipedians could simply be trusted to use common sense, treat each other responsibly, 'do the right thing' as they saw it and act in the interests of improving the encyclopaedia. The fact that we don't live in an ideal world, of course, means that we do need some process, but I think it's a truly fundamental part of the Wikipedia culture to remember that process is a necessary evil. That implies two things. Fans of IAR need to remember that some process is necessary. Fans of 'Process is important' need to remember that just because it's necessary doesn't make it any less evil.
 * So, yes, I do think IAR should be applied in controversial situations as a means of improving the encyclopaedia. Wikipedians acting in good faith in the interests of the encyclopaedia should always trump process. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "IAR should be applied in controversial situations..." - no, quite the opposite: in controversial situations, process in the broadest sense (discussion, debate, not acting unilaterally) is more important than in non-controversial situations. NB are you aware that "process is always evil" is an explicitly dictatorial and/or anarchic position? WP:NOT a democracy or a bureaucracy, but nor is it anarchy (WikiProject Policy matters). Rd232 talk 14:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In theory. Welcome to the real world. When there's a chaotic situation and there's a clock ticking (occaisionally happens), you're fscked. Time to grep meatball and WikiWikiWeb, apply the Feynman algorithm, cross your fingers, cross your toes, pray to your god(s), and then hit the buttons. Hail Mary!Kim Bruning 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The one time I really have had a clock ticking there was a debate of sorts.Geni 16:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've had some stuff that was wierdly time related. It's not normal, agreed. Kim Bruning 16:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Process is always evil' is entirely consistent with 'WP:NOT anarchy'. Note that 'process is always evil' doesn't mean 'there should be no process' in this context. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"This is important"
I've removed, from this essay and from WP:SNOW, some boilerplate that seemed to be saying that these essays are "important", and with a "nudge nudge" type of wording implying that they're up on the level of guidelines or policies. This wording struck me as inappropriate to both essays. They're essays and that's that. --Tony Sidaway 13:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And what about WP:IAR? &mdash;Ashley Y 22:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo quote
This was added, trimmed, cut, and restored earlier today: ''Wikipedia is not "all about process" and such an attitude is absolutely contrary to our longstanding community spirit. Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals. The rules lawyers of Wikipedia are a sickness upon us.--Jimbo Wales 16:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)'' Given all of that action already, let's see if we can work out here where/if this belongs in relation to the essay.

My personal view is that it doesn't belong on the essay page itself, because it serves mainly as a counterpoint to the essay, thereby "undermining" it. I don't even agree with Process is Important(tm) most of the time, but in most cases, discussion on the merits of an essay seem to take place on the talk page. So I would recommend leaving it here, regardless of archival. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh this is an easy one to deal with you just cite this and remove it.Geni 14:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

OTOH It'd be dishonest not to point out that many key wikipedians are diametrically opposed to "process is important", somehow. :-/ Despite the strong wording of the last sentence, I'm not sure how to proceed here. ^^;;

Kim Bruning 20:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

From my talk page:


 * Just out of curiosity, what was your reasoning behind putting a quote about how Wikipedia is not all about process, at the essay talking about how important process is? Seems counter-productive, and maybe designed to undercut the essay with an appeal to authority. But maybe you can shed light on this for me... for right now, I've removed your inclusion. -- nae'blis (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * please, lets discuss in the relevant talk page, not here. this is a conversation worth having where the entire community can hear us, not use on a user's talk page. In any case, thanks for the headsup, but my watchlist is as good as yours ;-)--Cerejota 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Now to the meat of the matter:

I was bold in my editing because this page has been used as a policy source by users who seemed not to understand it isn't policy, and this seemed to be a great way to poke fun at all the wikilawyers out there, who seem to be even worse than their real life counterparts, so they can bow down in awe at The Words of Jimbo Wales. Plus see their faces of confussion as it doesnt compute that procedure can be both important and not be ALL important :)...

In that sense, I think rather than counterpoint, it deepens the understanding of the underlying debates the essay points towards. While as an essay on policy, it has certain rights other articles don't, most of them community given (not process given :P), its goal still is to make Wikipedia better, and I think it both makes wikipedia better and the essay better, to have that quote in there... (and give the wikilawyers something else to debate about besides the merits of WP:XYZ versus WP:ZYX).

Furthermore, I think it is a relevant funny quote and a great epigraph for this article! Come on! Sense of humor? self-deprecation? having a pulse? :D (now, there is an idea for a page, the Little Blue MonoBook of Quotations of Chairman Jimbo!). --Cerejota 20:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the context of the quote I think it is rather a bad one to include. Jimbo was basically attacking a complete strawman; the opinion he's arguing against is not found in the post he was replying to. I like this part, though: "Wikipedia all about people, about mutual respect, about thoughtfulness and respect for others as individuals." I think this encapsulates well why process is important. We show respect to fellow editors when we allow them to have a fair say within a fair process - when minority opinions are steamrolled with reference to IAR or some such, people get frustrated. Haukur 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The strength of a society can be gauged by how it treats its minorities. Process guarantees rights to minorities on WIkipedia. Stephen B Streater 08:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure this is the right language. You have no 'rights' on Wikipedia. (Or, rather, you have precisely one right: to fork Wikipedia's content.) --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ <sup style="font-size: 70%;">talk 09:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Editors may not have rights, but their content does. The AfD process allows content to get a fair hearing before it is deleted, for example. Stephen B Streater 09:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't disagree that this is a good thing: personally I'm a great fan of AfD, because it can result in unsuitable or unencyclopaedic content being improved to the point where it benefits the encyclopaedia. However, I'm still not sure this should be construed as a 'right'. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ <sup style="font-size: 70%;">talk 10:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "AfD" and "fair hearing" in one sentence... Kim Bruning 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)