It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.
This page in a nutshell: The rules are a communication device written by you, not a textbook written by someone else
Wikipedia works best when everyone makes an effort to follow the rules, including and especially those they don't like
In that all pages belong to the whole project, any user may edit this one. But it's generally more helpful (and polite) to discuss the proposed change on its talk page first.
Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, documentation on use of templates etc. and lots of other things that might be seen as rules. But Wikipedia's strangest and perhaps most important policy is Ignore all rules. What! Then why even have them?
We have them because these rules are useful in building an encyclopedia. And on closer inspection it's not as strange as it seems, mainly because the Consensus policy is stranger still (see wp:Creed#consensus). And these two, supported by Assume good faith and No personal attacks have proved remarkably successful. Not perfect, but definitely towards that top end of the scale that runs all the way from perfect right down to useless.
This usefulness would be reason enough to have the rules. But it goes further. The smart money is, the rules are essential. Those four rules in particular:
Consensus.
Assume good faith.
No personal attacks.
Ignore all rules.
Consensus
Consensus is the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia. [1] Enough said, surely!
Assume good faith
We could in theory come to consensus without this one. It would just take longer, and discourage people along the way, and probably be the end of Wikipedia.
It's almost the same as saying respect the other guy. But not quite. Both are very good ideas, to the point that without at least some common acceptance of the general principle involved, Wikipedia just ain't gonna work.
No personal attacks
We probably could not come to consensus without this. Or even if we did, we'd never know for sure whether we had, or whether it was just that the guy with the thickest hide was the only one left standing. Not good.
Even if not quite so blatant as that, personal attacks never improve a discussion that's aimed at producing consensus. Which all of our discussions are.
Of course some of us have thicker hides than others. That doesn't give us any right to say to the others, grow up, be a man, it's only a very small insult. Wikipedia should be a safe place for everyone to edit.
The rule on no personal attacks is extreme. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.[2] There's no wiggle-room at all, and it's like that for a reason.
Part of the reason it's so simple is so that it should be easily understood by any idiot, and is by most of them. It's not always easy to keep to it, particularly when under attack yourself, or when you don't understand the other view and so the assume good faith rule is wearing thin. And a mild personal attack is not always a hanging offence. Not by any means!
But even a mild personal attack on someone who shrugs it off as harmless lessens Wikipedia. It sets a precedent that others will follow. Not good.
So it's always a bad idea to break this particular rule, and a good idea to try your best not to break it.
People should want to obey the rules, and mostly they do. They shouldn't need to be forced to! Because the rules are useful! Again, enough said, surely? Wikipedia is a collaboration, and that works best if all editors are prepared to make an effort to obey the rules even if they disagree with them.
Perhaps especially when they disagree. In the extreme that editors only obeyed the rules they agreed with, the rules would have no effect whatsoever, and it would be rather pointless having them.
Instead
When you disagree with a rule, there are four options.
If the rule is generally useful but this is an unusual case, get consensus on that and follow common sense to recognise this as the occasional exception. Simple.
If it matters to you that a particular rule is not useful (ie wrong), then let's change it. Get consensus, and change it. Maybe not quite so simple.
If it doesn't really matter to you, then let's not overreact. The job is not to write a perfect rulebook, it's to write the best possible encyclopedia. Too many rules just waste time both writing them and reading them. Either follow the rule or don't, and if you're challenged or reverted, discuss and hope to invoke IAR, go with the consensus either way, and move on.
If it matters to you but you can't get consensus support, tough. Obey the rule anyway for the good of the project, and move on.
