122:
35:
95:
260:
If you do "break" a rule – knowingly or unknowingly – another editor may explain to you which rule you broke. If you find the rule sensible, you will understand why the other editor suggested it should be followed. If you do not see the sense in it, however, you should explain why you disagree with
214:
widely agreed upon will be disregarded by most
Knowledge editors, and should not be called a rule in the first place. And even when a rule does have wide support, there may not be support for applying it in a specific case. Editors are always free to consider ways of doing things other than what
190:
The problem is that views can vary widely as to just what constitutes a "better way of doing things". Knowledge has thousands, if not millions of contributors, and disputes are common. Rules help to unify
Knowledge's editors in their quest to build the gargantuan 💕 that is Knowledge.
257:, and follow the style you see being used by other editors, and your contributions will generally be welcomed. Even if you don't know what formatting to use, someone else will come along and fix it for you, as long as they recognize your edits to be an improvement overall.
261:
it. Other editors will in turn respond, and with some luck, a sensible approach will eventually be adopted, which may involve ignoring the rule, following it, or taking an alternative approach that resolves the dispute to everyone's satisfaction.
202:
such a fundamental part of how
Knowledge works. Rules are only enforced when people agree that they should be enforced. This also means that Knowledge's rules must be
210:. The rules spell out areas of general agreement among Knowledge's editors – methods that usually work and principles that guide the entire venture. Any rule that is
356:
264:
Both those who wish to enforce a rule and those who wish to break it should explain why they feel doing so is the best course of action. Engaging in
283:
If consensus favors a given approach, that approach will usually be taken – though you may continue to advocate for a different approach, given that
273:
150:
If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.
218:
Knowledge's rules are thus not "rules" in the traditional sense, but standing agreements that are subject to constant re-evaluation (see
272:
to form between disputing parties. In the course of such discussions, it may be possible to work out an intermediate position, or to
54:
It contains the advice or opinions of one or more
Knowledge contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
241:
104:
55:
231:
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist.
219:
361:
277:
327:
171:
126:
47:
399:
292:
254:
195:
136:
was just getting started, its editors discussed what kind of rules the project should adopt. The first
269:
59:
288:
265:
249:
Most of the time when editing
Knowledge, you really don't need to know what the rules are. Just
69:
250:
236:
343:
43:
121:
181:
If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way.
393:
284:
143:
62:. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
17:
306:
133:
108:
276:
until one that is acceptable to all parties is found. Many other forms of
178:
You can contribute to
Knowledge without needing to know what the rules are.
158:
has changed since then, its purpose has remained the same. Understanding
194:
Knowledge has very little in the way of a formal power structure; most
162:
is the key to understanding the role of rules on
Knowledge in general.
198:
is done by ordinary users, making ordinary edits. This is what makes
120:
89:
29:
380:
338:
138:
77:
287:. Do not attempt to enforce your views through
302:
229:
148:
8:
107:prevents you from improving or maintaining
383:(this is the earliest accessible revision)
312:You wouldn't be wrong, not by a particle,
373:
357:Knowledge:What "Ignore all rules" means
381:RulesToConsider from 18 September 2001
314:To say we each should write an article
146:", and its earliest formulation was,
324:Can't we all straddle this wide fence
320:Which (we lose sight of this) is very
268:gives the best possible chance for a
7:
310:Sometimes that tape is rather sticky
291:; this will sooner or later get you
274:experiment with different approaches
60:thoroughly vetted by the community
56:Knowledge's policies or guidelines
25:
305:There's way too much red tape on
242:The Elements of Typographic Style
318:In drafting one more policy page
93:
33:
220:Knowledge:Consensus can change
170:Two important implications of
1:
362:Letter and spirit of the law
322:Clearly something ancillary
316:Instead of having to engage
226:Successfully ignoring rules
416:
67:
48:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
27:Essay on editing Knowledge
186:Why have any rules, then?
196:enforcement of its rules
166:The essence of ignorance
101:This page in a nutshell:
348:
280:are possible as well.
247:
152:
129:
154:While the wording of
124:
58:, as it has not been
285:consensus can change
139:rule they considered
326:With just a bit of
293:barred from editing
215:the rules specify.
278:dispute resolution
130:
125:Visual version of
336:Excerpted from a
266:polite discussion
237:Robert Bringhurst
119:
118:
88:
87:
16:(Redirected from
407:
400:Knowledge essays
384:
378:
346:
341:
245:
200:Ignore all rules
160:Ignore all rules
156:Ignore all rules
144:Ignore all rules
141:
97:
96:
90:
80:
37:
36:
30:
21:
415:
414:
410:
409:
408:
406:
405:
404:
390:
389:
388:
387:
379:
375:
370:
353:
347:
337:
335:
332:
301:
246:
235:
228:
188:
168:
137:
94:
84:
83:
76:
72:
64:
63:
34:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
413:
411:
403:
402:
392:
391:
386:
385:
372:
371:
369:
366:
365:
364:
359:
352:
349:
333:
325:
323:
321:
319:
317:
315:
313:
311:
309:
303:
300:
297:
233:
227:
224:
187:
184:
183:
182:
179:
167:
164:
117:
116:
98:
86:
85:
82:
81:
73:
68:
65:
53:
52:
40:
38:
26:
24:
18:Knowledge:UIAR
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
412:
401:
398:
397:
395:
382:
377:
374:
367:
363:
360:
358:
355:
354:
350:
345:
340:
331:
329:
308:
298:
296:
294:
290:
286:
281:
279:
275:
271:
267:
262:
258:
256:
252:
244:
243:
238:
232:
225:
223:
221:
216:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
192:
185:
180:
177:
176:
175:
173:
165:
163:
161:
157:
151:
147:
145:
140:
135:
128:
123:
114:
110:
106:
102:
99:
92:
91:
79:
75:
74:
71:
66:
61:
57:
51:
49:
45:
39:
32:
31:
19:
376:
339:longer piece
328:common sense
304:
289:edit warring
282:
263:
259:
255:common sense
248:
240:
230:
217:
211:
208:prescriptive
207:
203:
199:
193:
189:
169:
159:
155:
153:
149:
142:was called "
131:
112:
100:
41:
344:Newyorkbrad
204:descriptive
172:this policy
42:This is an
132:Back when
270:consensus
134:Knowledge
113:ignore it
109:Knowledge
394:Category
351:See also
70:Shortcut
251:be bold
78:WP:UIAR
50:policy.
46:on the
299:A poem
253:, use
206:, not
127:WP:IAR
368:Notes
174:are:
103:If a
44:essay
307:wiki
105:rule
342:by
222:).
212:not
396::
334:—
330:?
295:.
239:,
234:—
111:,
115:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
