Wikipedia talk:Use common sense

About this page

This page was created as a fork of Ignore all rules. Some felt there wasn't enough detail in "IAR" as it as called and others wanted to maintain its brief original form. This fork was created to expand more on the concepts of IAR. For a complete history, see the IAR talk page. --Wgfinley 05:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the Monty Hall problem shows that the idea behind this policy is flawed.Geni 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no common sense. Zocky | picture popups 12:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be policy at all. --LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

i am having trouble  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thttyt (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC) 

Common sense (1)

I do agree – only problem faced (sometimes) is that common sense is rather uncommon. --Bhadani 16:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have a theory that common sense is perfectly ubiquitous--because common sense is usually a code word implying that if you agree with me then you obviously have common sense, and if you don't then you're an idiot! (Please do not interpret this to mean that if you disagree with my theory then I consider you an idiot.) Cryptonymius 02:57, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I opposed the creation of this policy; the title is inflammatory, and if you want to officiate it, you will have to majorly overhaul the words mentioning, and not excluding, common sense in the policy.96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Since 'common sense' is subject in question here, what does the photograph on the Project page have any thing to do with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.96.60 (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Essay purpose?

What path or policy exactly is this essay trying to propose? I see two potential applications that the author may be trying to support, but am not sure which is the intention.

The first application would be essentially that if the rules seem to not directly apply to an issue, rather than fretting over it you should just take action.

The second application would be that if you personally think a rule is nonsensical, you ignore it.

The 1st application seems like wise advice, since the rules will obviously never cover every possible situation. The 2nd, however, is taking the position that personal discretion supercedes the Wikipedia guidelines and user consensus. Users who follow their own judgment over policy and consensus are the cause of more trouble on Wikipedia than anything else, with the possible exception of faulty article edits made out of simple ignorance.--Tjstrf 20:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'd say that maybe just as much trouble is caused by those users who become radically rule-absorbed. They can ruin the work of the less fanatical editors who don't have the time or inclination to fight a battle. I think this essay is a reflection of the fact that rules often do not reflect actual consensus, but only the consensus of the fairly small percentage of editors who're willing to argue over them (and even then, the most persistent editor usually wins). Esn (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Tjstrf: This page basically restates Ignore all rules, which is policy. Why not go oppose that page first? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Be happy!

Dear Wikipedian, you have acheived a considerable number of edits on wikipedia. This can mean, that you devote a large proportion of your free time to improving the articles on this free encyclopedia. I would like to remind you, however, that Wikipedia is not the best thing that happened to mankind since 2000, it is just a mere internet project, and there are lots of other things you can do, if you want to serve the community you live in. There might be opportunities in your local municipality, that would allow you to volunteer your time and efforts to help the diseased, disabled, or otherwise handicapped people. There are also organisations, that would use your time and work to help people in areas of world, where people have never actually seen a computer in their entire life, and don't know what internet or wikipedia is. Such organisations target hunger, diseases, or the lack of proper education in those areas. Please, try to reconsider, if you donate your time and efforts to the community that needs them the most.

Azmoc 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cute, but what's considered a "considerable" edit count? Also, some people might be insulted by the implication that they don't do anything offline to help people. I know I would be, since I have a 1500+ count, but also am active in my community as well. So, I would definitely stress caution in using this template, if at all. --tjstrf 21:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Moving page to Wikipedia:Use your best judgment

Elsewhere, it is stated that there is no common knowledge on Wikipedia, nor is there common sense. The idea of this essay does not contradict those, but the phrase it uses does. This is why I am moving this. The only thing being changed is the words, not the meaning, which is in line with what the essay professes.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I wish you'd put this out for a consensus vote first. The thing is, I had understood that WP and WP:SENSE were meant to complement each other like that. Also, none of the essays you cited are policies or guidelines of Wikipedia, so it's not like moving this clarifies any official policy of Wikipedia. You should probably read the fine essay Essays Are Not Policy. Also, next time you move a page, please clean up your mess: you left behind a whole slew of double-redirects which I just finished fixing. Thank you. --Aervanath 07:01, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not liking the new name. It doesn't have the same connotations of simplicity, and the link is now out of context for most of its uses. I support moving it back to the old name. Picaroon 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the new name totally doesn't get the point across. Even if there is technically no such thing as common sense, the concept does exist as something we can refer to. This is as bad as when they started randomly shuffling around WP:VAIN for the sake of political correctness. Can we please move it back? --tjstrf talk 02:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I'm already the fourth person opposing the move, I've been bold and moved it back. Sorry for creating a number of double redirects once again, gotta fix that later. :) --Conti|✉ 07:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, move it back. I just feel that the name and the meaning are not at all the same thing in light of similar entries in the Wikipedia namespace. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Flaws

Common sense is what tells us that the Earth is flat. And that heavy objects fall faster than light ones. And that mass is solid and velocity is additive. Common sense is fine as far as it goes, but it has to be tempered with the occasional reality check.  :) Xtifr _tälk 20:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Your common sense can speak for itself! :-P --Kim Bruning 15:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

As can that of my species! :p  ;) --Xtifr _tälk 10:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest expansion

This Essay could use expansion to cover other areas. In particular I would like to see this discuss WP:GUIDELINES and the fact that are just that guidelines and the use of guidelines is actually subject to common sense. Far too many editors treat guidelines as policy or rules. This essay on Common Sense is the perfect place IMO to have a discussion reguarding this. Russeasby 03:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Use common sense

Indeed, I have recently seen some people oppose particular edits on the grounds that they are not required by codified rules, even though common sense suggests they improve the article. Michael Hardy 01:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Status as an essay

Some time back this essay magically became a "policy supplement"[1]. Since policy is consensus based, and there has not been a consensus to make this a policy or even a supplement to policy I have returned it to the status of essay. If anyone wishes this page to be more than an essay please attempt to gain consensus for that first. 1 != 2 18:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Rockstar, please talk here instead of reverting to the non-consensus version of the page. Policy is not made by putting a tag there over and over it is made through discussion. Please revert yourself until there is such a consensus. 1 != 2 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Since IAR is only one sentence long, I feel like it kind of needs supplementing so that users (particularly new ones) can understand it without having to read long archives of talk pages they may not know how to access. I see nothing in here that goes against Wikipedia spirit, and nothing in here that isn't directly implied by IAR, so I would have no problem keeping this as a policy supplement. 1!=2, I agree with your assessment that this page never achieved consensus for policy, but that's not really how Wikipedia consensus works. This page was policy supplement for 4 months and no one objected; silence usually implies consensus, and unless there is strong disagreement, I think it should remain policy supplement as default. - Chardish (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well here's another one - under no circustances should this be a "policy supplement" until consensus is shown. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you guys read the page? Are you honestly objecting because there was no vote?!? This is a restatement of one of the five pillars. It's about as important as any policy. Friday (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, each of the five pillars already has a page, so what's the reduandancy here for? --Fredrick day (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That may be a reason to merge, but good luck changing the IAR page. Or maybe we keep it as clarification just like Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. They sure seem similar to me. Both are attempts to better explain a central concept in Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

But you still need to get consensus that the clarification is not a novel interperation of what those pages say before we slap the word "policy" anywhere on this page. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

This page was always supplemental or related to IAR, it's just we never had a supplemental type template before. If you prefer to state that it's related instead, feel free to subst in the template and edit.

Note that the current template says "supplemental essay" as opposed to "policy supplement" (did it ever say that at all?) , which probably won't PO too many people, so it's probably safe to put back by now. Have a nice day. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC) was the template changed in January? I think so. If the current revision is still not ok, feel free to subst. I'd say feel free to revert too, but I'm sort of getting the idea that reverting good faith edits doesn't really do much good, so that's up to you then.

Maybe it's time to think about upgrading WP:COMMON to a guideline? PSWG1920 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Common sense noticeboard?

Has a Common Sense Noticeboard ever been considered? By that I mean a noticeboard where disputes involving claims of common sense could be linked to, which could also potentially serve as examples of how policies and guidelines may need to be reworded. Does something like that already exist? PSWG1920 (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that what's important is what you're applying common sense to, and the subject matter probably what should determine which noticeboard it goes on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 23:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed to policy/guideline

No brainer, really. Needs to become a policy, or at the very very least, part of IAR. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't like it being characterized as an "essay" as it was previously, but I think "information page" does fine. WP:IAR is intentionally kept very simple, so I don't think merging WP:COMMON there would stick. And if WP:COMMON were itself a policy or guideline, then it would link to itself at the top. PSWG1920 (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have reservations, two editors could make diametrically opposed statements/ actions and then each cite this as a guideline. Common sense is going to mean different things to different people with different opinions and backgrounds; new and established users in particular would likely not interpret what was common sense in the same way. Guest9999 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see what this adds beyond the preexisting and elegant IAR. Most of what it does add is rather well countered by Wikipedia:There is no common sense (an idea I've understood to be true long before WP began). -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

But Wikipedia:There is no common sense states that your edits should contribute to the "interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense." So in other words, if you use common sense as a guide (assuming you don't suffer from a disorder that affects your rational mind) for knowingly contributing for the interest of the encyclopedia then it's alright to ignore a rule that may prevent such a constructive edit. People who assume good faith, contribute in good faith and frequently utilize common sense shouldn't need to constantly peruse and memorize rules. And Wikipedia is one of the few places who operate on these principles, rather than being run by some insecure self-loving asshole admin (or admins) who thinks he knows everything and can justify any retarded decision he makes with "it's my site."

Rules only exist (well, they should anyway) to keep potentially disruptive editors in line. Those with good intentions don't need to be guided (there are some exceptions though.) Similarly, laws exist (*sigh* SHOULD) in the real world to control criminals, but anyone with a moral compass and common sense manages to get thru life without getting in trouble with the law despite that he probably rarely reviews it (again, negligible, laws can also exist to oppress innocent people, so it's understandable that everyone has their own idea of "right" or "common sense.")

I guess there's no way to define common sense, only the hope that most editors will intuitively get the idea. I still vote that this become a policy. There's more to one than just solid definitions.--70.65.229.62 (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually belive that these two pages (WP:SENSE and WP:NOSENSE are actually contradictory. SENSE says (or should say, IMO) "use common sense when applying policy". NOSENSE says, or should say, "don't use common sense to create policy". Perhaps we should work to more clearly express this distinction, and perhaps unify the two pages. Happy‑melon 14:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's fine as is to be honest. What would it solve by making it policy? Hiding T 10:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this proposal gaining consensus anytime soon. Could we consider closing it? --Thinboy00 @226, i.e. 04:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

simple:Wikipedia talk:Use common sense

I have now realized just why this shouldn't be a guideline or policy, despite being a fundamental principle of the community. While its essential meaning is clear, its application is anything but. And citing it is a huge problem, for reasons explained in WP:NOCOMMON. Telling someone to "just use common sense" will get you nowhere and is likely to exacerbate the problem. I am now arguing to demote WP:AGF to an information page (just like this one) for similar reasons. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The basic premise of common sense is in every policy and guideline, not just on the template at the top plainly telling people to use common sense in a policy and guideline's application. I'm sick of editors applying the letter of the "rule" instead of the INTENT of wikipedia's policies and guidelines in general. I would like to see more editors use common sense and realize that the policies and guidelines arent the last and only word on a subject and that consensus and common sense can and SHOULD and DOES overrule policy and guidelines. I would like a one stop place for those of us who may come across a stubborn editor who insists "show me in a policy or guideline where it says you can do this (or I cant do that)". Those types go around quoting policy and guidelines like they were handed down right after the Ten Commandments by some Wiki-God and dont absolutely refuse to listen to anything else. I have proposed at wikipedia:policies and guidelines that a sentence be added to the effect of-

Quoting policies and guidelines should not be used as a way to override common sense and the consensus of the community in a debate or discussion.

I'm open for variations but strongly urge anyone who believes in common sense to support my proposal at the page and on every guideline and policy. There is also a new wikiproject common sense started by another wikipedian. I urge like minded people to join.Camelbinky (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Infopage

The infopage tag is apparently used only for pages that neutrally describe parts of wikipedia (though it seems that help pages have taken over this role). This page advises people to use common sense. Was this a guideline before? If not, then someone should correct me and change it to essay, or whatever it was.    M   01:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this page is now one of the most amusing things I've seen on Wikipedia. From the banner that is now at its top: "[Common sense] is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." Aum...    M   01:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's a less zen-like rewording of IAR. Oh. Wait. <Facepalm> --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Does your common sense tell you that Wikipedia will be improved by an extended discussion about whether or not this page should be a {guideline}, {policy}, or {essay}? I'm done now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't this a {{supplement}} to IAR or so? --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

+ <raises hands in surrender>... I'm not going to be rocking the boat here. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What?

I've just heard of this page, and my immediate reaction is to stab it with a pitchfork. It's a clearly an over-promoted essay. It could be redirected to WP:IAR, a long-standing encapsulation of the same idea, more usefully focussed on the objective of Wikipedia (building an encyclopedia). I suspect the people watching this page are those who think otherwise, so please explain clearly what justifies having this page separate from IAR. thanks. Rd232 ^talk 19:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is an intentional dearth of text on the WP:IAR page, and I see this page as one of the series of subsequent pages that help make sense of IAR, along with Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, Wikipedia:Understanding IAR, and even Wikipedia:How to break the rules. Using common sense has very much the same meaning as IAR as you say, but for new editors not familiar with the "rules" it can be an easier concept to understand and follow - ideally, most things in life should follow common sense. Just reading IAR might seem to a new editor that you should edit war when you know you are right, but common sense provides the more full understanding. I agree that this page is not up to snuff, but I think it provides a clearer, more easy to grasp (less zen) explanation without forcing a lot of reading on new editors (a key point of IAR). ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. It is one of four pages supplementing IAR which listed in IAR's see also. It is the only one to be a guideline, rather than an essay. It's fine to make it an essay explaining IAR. Making it a guideline gives it a separate status which is not OK, particularly when it's an essay title and shortcut which is so open to misinterpretation/abuse. And in fact it appears to have been upgraded to guideline on 9 August [2] without any sign of debate around then, while the earlier debate doesn't seem to support that. So I've undone that and put it back to essay status. Rd232 ^talk 22:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the talk page discussion directly above was not noted. The section above this one describes why it fails to be an infopage. If someone would like to trace this back to when 'infopage' was added, and return to that, this would be fine. However, until then, it should be noted that this essay (or what have you) is linked at the top of every single policy and guideline, via the templates. This is a bit strange.    M   23:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be a guideline. There are too many idiots on here already who do not think that common sense needs to be used, or for that matter any individual thought processes. "Use common sense" needs to have teeth so that it can be quoted to those who love to go around using policy and guidelines verbatim and refuse to acknowledge any argument that uses common sense. They only want to hear about policy and guidelines like somehow they have become the "Constitution of Wikipedia" and must be adhered to strictly and if something isnt in policy then it isnt relevant. My personal opinion is that those who have that opinion of our policies/guidelines are mostly of the Republican/Conservative spectrum who believe in strict constructionist views already in politics and are thereby bringing their personal beliefs to this arena as well. Like the US Constitution, the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are a living document that can be interpreted in many different ways and need to be applied differently in different situations as they occur. We the editors of Wikipedia when discussing and coming to a consensus act as the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia, if the consensus of a majority by using common sense should decide to do the opposite of what a literal application of a policy would proscribe, then one or two editors should not be allowed to disrupt by saying "you have to have policy to back it up. there is no common sense". Common sense is the penumbra to our policies, it is mentioned at the top of every policy and guideline, let us now force those to pay attention to that. Let common sense reign here on Wikipedia and stand up to say "No more throwing our own rules down our throats, if we choose to ignore them in particular situations, it is our right".Camelbinky (talk) 05:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The obvious counter to that is (a) IAR is supposed to serve that function. It's fine to clarify the meaning of IAR, but not to create a new thing, because (b) this new thing will inevitably be used by some as an excuse to do whatever they want. The title and shortcut encourage that, I think, in a way IAR and the other clarifying essays don't. In any case, the contention that this needs to be a guideline should not be settled here, on a page most people have never heard of. If it's going to be pursued, it needs an RFC on WP:CENT. Rd232 ^talk 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It needs to be settled here and it needs to be settled now. This is not something "new", this page did not suddenly spring into existence this month. Those that think you have to quote a policy or guideline in order to be listened to need to have "use common sense" shoved down their throats. Making it a guideline is the ONLY way to force morons to accept common sense suggestions and ideas. And yes it will force them, because they are the types who, if something is a guideline, they will listen to it even if they disagree. Which is why they dont want this a guideline, because then they will have to "obey it". No more mindless robots who quote rules and dont use any intelligent independent thought about how to apply (or not apply) a rule to a particular situation. I would like to have a debate with anyone who thinks this shouldnt be a guideline and the results of the debate can settle the question. This is not going to open a can of worms where suddenly everyone can use it to justify anything they want! That's ridiculous and the complete opposite of what "common sense" is, common sense by definition cant be used as an excuse to do whatever you want because only certain things are common sense and if you do something that isnt then you cant very well justify it by quotiing common sense, it would make you a moron. I know we have plenty of those here, so this isnt going to multiply them.Camelbinky (talk) 22:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool down

• wow... I think some of you need to take a breath, and then review what you've written here. "Idiots"? "Morons"? "They need to be forced"? Geez... Do I really need to point out the problems with the line of thinking that some are espousing here?
  — V = I * R (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  Hmm, "some of you" and "that some are espousing", really? "Some"? How about you come out and say "Camelbinky" instead since the examples you gave only apply to me. If you are going to make a comment, a useless one by the way that is in no way helpful, then be honest. I am being honest with my feelings about other's comments. Hence- moron, idiot, and yes they do need to be forced. They try to force us to see policy and guidelines as strict written in stone things that must be obeyed or else what you say or do is not valid in Wikipedia. To counter people like that you must act on their level. If someone is throwing rocks at you, then it probably wont do any good to say "please dont"; you get a bigger rock and you bash them back. Obviously that's a metaphor, I am not advocating violence. Rocks=guidelines. Give wp:use common sense some teeth so it is possible to use it against those that say "show me in a policy or guideline where it is says you can do that", and there are LOTS of editors who do that. We need to use common sense. Saying IAR is enough is moronic because that has nothing to do with common sense. I'm not saying use common sense will be enough or fix all our problems, lots of editors already ignore "ignore all rules" because they think it's a way for other editors to do "what they want". Which isnt true. There need to be a clear-cut straight-out statement telling that small group of editors-

  "Look, our policies and guidelines are not 'rules' or 'laws', we do not treat them as such, we do not take them word-for-word literally and absolutely. They are flexible, and they arent always applied in a consistent manner. The way we apply our guidelines and policies depends on a case-by-case basis and decisions are made by consensus, not by the blind application of a set rulebook. Should the majority in a case decide to use common sense and apply (or ignore) a policy/guideline in a certain manner, then so be it and that decision stands and cant be interferred with because one individual says 'you cant back it up with policy, its not legitimate".

  Look, I'm sick and tired of being in arguments where its 13 against 2 and I even have several admins on my side and some idiot is spouting "I dont listen unless its a guideline" and he gets slaps on the wrist for editwarring, and no one just says "this is the consensus, this is the way it is", instead he gets to have his way because he can quote policy and guideline. No more blind adherence to something that gets in the way of common sense. I'm seriously fed up with "debates" turning into "who can quote policy better". I dont know every policy and guideline nor do I care to. I do have lots of common sense though and dont see why using an argument based on logic and common sense doesnt mean more than a quote from a policy page. It should, and it needs to.Camelbinky (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  In a nutshell, you're complaining about wikilawyering, no? Well I'm sorry, I don't think a Common Sense guideline is going to help; it'll just lead to chaos. What you really want is better application of the existing WP:Consensus and WP:IAR. There are no shortcuts. Rd232 ^talk 09:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  Rd232 has got the right idea. UCS exists to explain IAR, and as an alternate understanding and phrasing of IAR so it could theoretically be called a "Guideline by proxy." But we don't need to be referring to it directly as one. I can't think of any argument, wikilawyering or not, that would be made better by telling your opponent to "Use Common Sense!" That's offensive in real life and is only gonna get someone more riled up, and rightfully so! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  For the record, you weren't the only one making aggressive statements Camelbinky. I wasn't trying to single you out at all, I was just trying to cool off the rhetoric slightly. I apologize if it seems that I was singling you out.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Common sense

How ironic... Let's apply some common sense to this issue. Policy (and guideline) does not prescribe behaviour, it documents the consensus on current or desirable behaviour. The principle of applying common sense exists independently of a page Wikipedia:Use common sense, and independently of what template is at the top of such a page. Guidelines can be documented in a variety of places, and it often makes sense and reduces instruction creep to combine similarly-oriented guidelines or policy in one place. But here for other reasons we want to keep WP:IAR, its natural location, as minimalist as possible, meaning that if it is to be documented at all, it should be documented as a guideline on its own page. It is a non sequitur to be arguing over anything other than "should we be using common sense"? If this is standard practice, then a guideline can be accurately and appropriately written to document it. If it is not desirable practice, then it should be an essay. Now, is it desirable practice? (also)Happy‑melon 19:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

One, look up the definition of ironic please. Two- are you seriously saying there even needs to be a debate on whether or not editors on Wikipedia should use common sense? Anyone who states the opinion that common sense should not be used in Wikipedia needs to stay away from any article I work on. What could possibly be said to justify not using common sense?! Third- why does everyone talk like IAR is the same as telling people to use common sense?! Has anyone read it?! IAR stands for "ignore all rules", and states that if a guideline/policy prevents you from improving (and I stress as strongly as I can the improving part) then you should ignore the "rule" that prevents you from doing it. That is not the same thing as common sense. Common sense has given us the right to say "looking at a map and describing something anyone can see on it is not original research", IAR did not give us that right, using our common sense and coming to that conclusion everytime it comes up on the OR/noticeboard gave us that conclusion. We didnt "ignore a rule", we used common sense. In fact on the OR and RS noticeboards common sense more than the "rules" tends to win, which is why I love those noticeboards and hate the discussion pages of particular articles where it seems those "rule quoters" tend to win because it is a smaller forum and they can bully and hold off a majority more than on the noticeboards where more flexible common sense interpretations of policies are applied. Common sense is a way of interpretting and applying the "rules" we have, IAR is about simply ignoring the rules. They are not the same thing. I would like this debate on the merits of wp:use common sense to remain about the merits of common sense and not about IAR, stating that IAR exists therefore common sense is already covered is not a legitimate point. Perhaps since it has been kept as a minimalist guideline is the problem, have you seen how long other guidelines are? It seems that "instruction creep" is what those who oppose something always use, that needs to stop because it isnt a helpful insight, but yet they dont mind quoting the thousands of other lines of text we already have that support whatever they want to do (or stop others from doing). All I want is somewhere in a policy/guideline the statement that "our policies and guidelines are not rules to be applied blindly, they GUIDE discussions and each situation is unique and consensus using a common sense application of those polices are the only binding decisions, until a new consensus is reached. Quoting guidelines is not a substitution for discussion. Policies and guidelines may be ignored by the consensus reached."Camelbinky (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd question whether the term "practice" can usefully be applied to the concept of "use common sense". "Use fish knives for eating fish" - that's a practice. Signing talk message with 4 tildes - that's a practice. Common sense is a meaningless expression. Rd232 ^talk 19:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you taking into account that we already have 3 essays for interpreting IAR? Do we need a 4th which goes well beyond that to introduce something new and dangerous (the pseuod-concept of "common sense")? Rd232 ^talk 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think what you want is covered here: Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Suggest upgrading that to guideline - that I would consider. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Though there is also the more general WP:GAME, which is a guideline. Rd232 ^talk 21:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ironic: "coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant... way". I think the need to apply common sense to a discussion about WP:SENSE satisfies that definition.

"are you seriously saying there even needs to be a debate on whether or not editors on Wikipedia should use common sense": no, I find the fact that this discussion can still exist despite the widespread consensus on this issue, to be itself rather ironic; it's not a very sensible thing to be doing. In my opinion, the principle that our policies and guidelines must be interpreted with common sense rather than literally, is thoroughly enshrined in our ethos. It is very bizzarre, therefore, to encounter such persistent debate as to whether we need to describe that practice in a guideline or policy (policies and guidelines, of course, being pages that describe consensus on wikipedia...).

I do not agree that "use common sense" is distinct from "ignore all rules". If anything, I would actually argue that SENSE is the 'superior' policy. If the rigid application of a policy in a particular situation would be detrimental to the encyclopedia, it would be sensible to ignore it. WP:IAR is the "natural location" for this content iff for whatever reason people don't want it as a separate page. I personally see no problem with the existence of WP:SENSE; I'd say that if anything IAR should be a section within it. (also)Happy‑melon 17:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone explain why this essay is liked from the top of every single policy and guideline page, as if it's something important? I'd remove it, but I'm afraid it'll start an RfC where a bunch of editors come by and say 'sure, why not, no harm at all'.    M   21:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's linked from template:policy and template:guideline. That doesn't bother me too much, even if it is an essay. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All this page really seems to be saying is that editors shouldn't engage in Wikilawyering. Do we really need a separate page for that? Readin (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Frankly, I think that this whole page needs to be redirected to a (small) section of WP:IAR. It should then subsequently be removed from the templates as well. The whole idea behind "Use common sense" is overly aggressive, and extremely subjective, no matter who says it or what this page may ever state.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  People would probably object to that, because IAR is just one sentence. However Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means would be an excellent candidate for a merger. Rd232 ^talk 06:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

  Of course, you're correct :)
  — V = I * R (talk) 10:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

OK, in anticipation of a merger/redirect into Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means, I've copied the body of this essay into a new section there. I've also linked to this discussion heading from the edit summary and the talk page there. If anyone has any compelling reasons not to complete the merger by redirecting this page and the current shortcuts to the new section on WP:IAR?, speak now, or forever hold your piece.
— V = I * R (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. The brevity of this page is the best argument in my mind - this way you get more bang for your buck. Plus, it makes sense, although it's too bad we lose out on that great one-liner. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that it is still just an essay and most essays state that they may be the opinions of one or more contributing editors and may be a minority view and therefore should be considered with discretion (but apparently not this one wp:what "ignore all rules" means). I dont know what the difference is between the two types of essays, why one type of essay has the disclaimer I spoke of and why the one you are using has a different essay disclaimer. Either way the problem is that it is an essay, it is not a guideline. In an argument with a "wikilawyer" they will not accept the reasoning of an essay! If a wikilawyer only listens to arguments based on guidelines and policy (as I understand the definition of wikilawyer) then only fighting back with policy and guideline will suffice. Those wikilawyers are the ones who dont want things like common sense or wikilawyering to be anything more than an essay because they can ignore it and continue with what they do. We need teeth in this instead of more mergers/redirects and rewrites of essays. This accomplishes nothing. Will someone please tell me a suggestion on something that can seriously be done to put some teeth into stopping wikilawyering when you see it? If there was a guideline then we could use warning templates and slap them on these individuals and get admins to take it seriously into consideration on temporary blocking and eventual booting if they should continue to disrupt talk pages with wikilawyering preventing the consensus of a majority from being implemented. I know we cant end all wikilawyering, but we can at least figure out alternatives to just saying "people will do it anyways, why try to stop them?"Camelbinky (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think a lawyer (wiki or otherwise) can be stopped by creating more laws? Not going to happen. The only way to deal with wikilawyers is by outnumbering them with sensible people, forcing them to respect consensus. What we should really be doing is reducing the number of policies and guidelines, because proliferation of these encourages wikilawyers because they know fewer sensible people can be bothered to keep up with / figure out the expanding policy thicket. As for the common sense thing, it fits perfectly well into the "What IAR means" essay as a section, and that essay's been accepted as being a sort of "supplementary-to-policy essay" which has a slightly higher status, I suppose, than an ordinary one. Rd232 ^talk 23:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! I added the one liner to the section on WP:IAR? as well, Amory. I thought about keeping that earlier anyway, so the added prompting prodded me into actually doing it.

I understand what you're saying Camelbinky, I really do. The problem is that, regardless of whether or not this or any other document is a guideline, policy, essay, or even in existance at all, is not really going to help "in an argument with a "wikilawyer"". We're not actually ignoring your opinion, it's just that if you're looking for help winning arguments then you're really in the wrong namespace completely. I would suggest checking out several of the articles within Category:Critical thinking, and you might want to at least skim over WP:POLICY#Role while your at it as well, but it's up to you. Anyway, since this is a redirect now, it's probably best to start a new conversation at WT:IAR?.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 23:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Further dispute

The guideline template itself uses "common sense" as a recognized standard of behavior and judgment. If "common sense" itself is nothing more than an "essay", then this description becomes illogical. That's bad. There's no point in hiding this under another header other than to obscure this policy because of a philosophical disagreement, which, after reading the above, is hardly convincing or widely recognized. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some kind of forking of ideas here. "Common sense" in the above template refers to the "Use common sense" section of another page. Things needs to be tidied up so we can see what's what. But the fact that a page called "Use common sense" is marked as an essay doesn't mean that "common sense" itself is an "essay" - common sense is a fundamental principle that ought to take precedence over everything, regardless of what pages people have written to talk about it.--Kotniski (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, I've just looked at the history - this page was redirected to that other page until just now. I don't think you should resurrect old guidelines and just declare them unilaterally to be guidelines again without new discussion.--Kotniski (talk) 12:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I did, the page was marked as a disputed guideline & just reverted further to the use of a non-policy tag. However I agree with taking greater care with the semantics of this dispute. While the contents of this page are implicit in the greater body of core Wikipedia policies, I think that relegating it to a subsection of an "essay" minimizes the importance of what is said here and implies that use of common sense may or may not be the general consensus. Use of common sense is the consensus, if not the very spirit, of Wikipedia editing practices - with notable exceptions. It is not a direct equivalent of IAR, but a specific and important safety net. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This page, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means and Wikipedia:There is no common sense were merged into a single one, as their main overall idea is basically the same. MBelgrano (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, however this shouldn't have happened as WP:UCS is no mere essay and is not subordinate to the other essay's interpretation of IAR. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Even policies and guidelines should be merged if they are redundant with others. The idea of this page isn't anything that isn't already considered by the more generic IAR. The system developed was a good one: keep just the simple policy, and merge all explanations of "how do we use this policy on everyday work" at a linked page somewhere else MBelgrano (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This page wasn't merged because it was redundant, it was merged because an editor thought it was "over-promoted", i.e. he disagreed and wished to make it less noticeable. The original essay cum law was concise and useful (or at least widely used). It has a distinct and separate meaning from the explicit IAR policy. While I hope that most contributors have an inherent understanding of common sense and its relation to the application of policy, many, many events have led to the necessity of explaining, in no uncertain terms, that it is an essential component of deciphering policy. Again, relegating it to a somewhat-related essay written at a later date is nothing more than a begrudging compromise that reduces the value of having an easily accessible resource. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 16:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ajaysing p rajput.(Bcom 2008)govt of india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.99.155.14 (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)