Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Ignore all rules

I'd restrict it to things that any registered user can do, such as editing, since the policy seems to be aimed at regular users. Sure, deletion is easily corrected by another sysop, but it can't be undone by a regular user, and I think that admin discretion should be laid out in the adminship policy (and any other policies and guidelines focused specifically and admin-exclusive user rights). Also, this looks more like a guideline than a policy, and I think that we could integrate Wikipedia:Assume good faith into this. -- Gordon Ecker 02:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The goals of those policies are totally different, though. They're both better suited as guidelines, but since they aren't trying to achieve the same thing, we should keep them separate. -Auron 03:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this would be more of a guideline, assuming we're talking about Wikipedia-style guidelines("Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", [1]). The goal of the wiki(documenting GW2), without exception, outweighs any policy or rule(including this one(i.e., if the idea that documenting GW2 is more important than policies hinders the wiki's ability to document GW2, then this policy, should it become policy, should be ignored)). However, if we define guidelines and policies differently than Wikipedia does, this might perhaps be better as guideline. --Edru/QQ 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

This would be a better policy as rejected. Rules don't stop people from maintaining the wiki and in minor cases where they do, if it is serious enough consensus can be achieved to make a change or to change policy. This looks too much like "Do what you want if the rules annoy you". 58.110.142.135 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Except, if you ignore a rule to improve the wiki, you can still be punished for violating the rule unless you can conclusively convince people that your violation of the rule was needed to improve the wiki. I definitely take issue with your claim that "Rules don't stop people from maintaining the wiki." They do. And, regardless of whether they do, a portion of the meaning of "ignore all rules"(the "you don't have to read the policies before contributing" bit) is essential to the wiki's success. Many potential contributors can be scared off by all the policy and bureaucracy of some wikis(see GWW). Your post seems to be predicated on the belief that policy is important to the well-being of a wiki. It's not. The purpose of the wiki is. After that, consensus about how best to achieve that purpose, and the processes used to achieve that consensus. On many wikis(and imo, this is the way things should be), policies are generally a description of already-existing informal practice. It is far from infeasible for policies to fall behind and become no longer useful. The question. then, is "Do we keep the now unworkable policy and abide by it until we have gotten rid of it or replaced it or do we willfully violate a policy that now obstructs the purpose of the wiki. --Edru/QQ 05:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Which is why making good policies which follow common sense and allow us to foster a healthy community is very important at this stage, this policy is counter-productive at best. Why bother making a rule if you intend for it to be broken? How are we to say what someone has done is ignore all rules to help the wiki or just doesn't want to conform and instead feel special? You fail to site where rules have been counter-productive. Also that wikipedia page you linked to would have most of the admin at GWW and many of the people they take issue with as useless contributors because they don't contribute to content any more aside from a select few (such as Anja and Poke (very limited scope and mostly taking formatting away from the access level of the average user - the others delete pages and sit around in policy discussions or wiki drama). Instead of making a rule like this we should make sure that the policies we have are common sense, effective and not intrusive while allowing he admin to deal with problems when they arise - currently what the horrible policies at GWW allow our admins to do, although some policies aren't common sense but rather redundant. Admins know when the average user has made an edit in good faith but broken a policy, or created a signature which violates policy and they know how to deal with these situations. They are treated differently from trolling and vandalism. We don't need something like this, we need good policies and rules and good admins. 58.110.142.135 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Question: if policies don't interfere with documenting GW2, then why do those portions of this proposal which deal with ignoring policies that interfere with documenting GW2 matter? Anyone who invokes IAR when their violation of the rule doesn't actually improve the wiki gets punished for violating the rule as they would normally. Why is what is essentially two sentences of the entire article("If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining the Guild Wars 2 Wiki, ignore it." and "The common purpose of documenting the game trumps both.") the only part you're discussing? If you take issue with that aspect of the draft, why not say that you oppose that aspect of it, not the whole? Or do you disagree with the other aspects as well? I ask because you haven't been mentioning anything but those two sentences, which are really not the most important part of this policy, imo. --Edru/QQ

(Edit conflict) Am I the only one that finds a literal interpretation of this policy somewhat ironic? Yes, someone could attempt to use this policy as a loophole to get around policy, but, that's the intent at all, the idea isn't to undermine policy (it certainly isn't meant to suggest that policies are meant to be broken) it's more about allowing users to "Be Bold" by suggesting that improving the Wiki trumps policy. Besides which, the fact of the matter is that policies won't always be based on common sense, and, even if they are, there are people who will interpret them incorrectly (which is the problem you seem to suggest with this policy). And as to "How are we to say what someone has done is ignore all rules to help the wiki or just doesn't want to conform and instead feel special?," the answer is remarkably simple, use common sense. An edit that doesn't conform to some obscure formatting policy but which adds valuable material is obviously an attempt to improve the Wiki.

I guess when it comes right down to it, the value I see in this policy isn't even so much the actual impact it will have on how people edit and how admins enforce policy, but rather that it helps shape a mentality that isn't geared towards large, overly bureaucratic policies coupled with strictly literal interpretation. *Defiant Elements* +talk 05:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One might assume that a policy that spends most of it's time on explaining how misleading it is might not be the best written policy ever. Backsword 23:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

What? --Edru/QQ 23:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

But then again, it could be the very best one ever. It's self explanitory, then explains what you shouldn't expect from it. That may just be the best policy ever, you never know until you try it. ‽-(eronth) I give up 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Can we just incorporate this into another policy? Or have some sort of mega user policy? Including parts of this, Disruption, Signature, and Userspace. Because I'm beginning to feel like we're beginning to "micro-manage" every tiny aspect of users and their actions. Calor (t) 00:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, seeing as this seems like a rather "spirit of the law" based wiki, I don't see why that couldn't happen! If I'm perceiving that spirit of the law part of the wiki in my own imagination, then combining might not be such a good idea. But for now, I say "Good deal, guy(s)". ‽-(eronth) I give up 00:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Guild Wars 2 Wiki is not a bureaucracy."

We have bureaucrats... urm... RT | Talk 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But we don't have a civil service and lots of red tape ... yet. Lord Belar 23:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)