This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline.
Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community.

This page in a nutshell: Because the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia, ignore them all completely!

WP:IAR states that you should ignore a rule if it prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. The question is, what is "improving" Wikipedia? Is it to include anything that you know to be true, regardless of verifiability? Is adding hate-provoking or disgusting content going to improve the reader experience? Does being bold mean that you can simply delete the main page without discussing it first?

What is improving Wikipedia?[edit]

The main objective is of course to provide useful information. If a use is found for a piece of information, it is useful by definition. Useful information can be anything, such as how to bake a cake or what time it is. New uses can be invented for apparently worthless pieces of info; they can, for example, be used as code keys. Rumours are also occasionally true. Additionally, false information is still information, and can be used for deceiving people—as valid a use for information as any other. A white lie won't hurt anyone, and can be very entertaining. Besides, there is no use to telling the truth to those who already know it, so those who may notice the discrepancies are outside the target audience and therefore any feedback by them inconsequential.

Let's also not forget reader experience. Bored or annoyed readers will not of course learn anything from us. Adding colour in texts for decoration and some witty humour will make learning a pleasure! Any non-sequitur (be it profanity, mindless, or ungrammatical) will do as a joke, because the occurrence of sudden irrelevance itself is already humorous. Changing the font of an article for illustrative purposes is highly encouraged as well! Also, more detail in plot summaries allows for a more emotional impact, giving a more enjoyable experience for our readers. With a good synopsis, they don't even need to buy the work! Besides, some stories are really boring, so why not improve them? No one unfamiliar with the work will notice or care, and giving Romeo and Juliet a happy ending will not make our readers depressed. Those who remember the real ending will not notice, as they obviously won't bother reading something they already know. Those who read it however, will probably like the new ending more. The same principle can be extended to real world events and history as well. Ever felt downhearted by all the needless suffering in the world—war, slavery, discrimination, famine, poverty, disasters, genocide? Or, worst of all, an opinion you disagree with? No worries, the world can easily be made to seem a better place by rewriting history and censoring opposing views, even those backed by prominent experts and science. Who's not to say feelings are more important than facts?

Why the rules prevent you from improving Wikipedia[edit]

An encyclopaedia collects information. WP:NOT has a list of types of information which should not be included - but the reasons are a bit questionable. Having a date service would help entertain our visitors, and it wouldn't seriously harm Wikipedia, would it? Also, a statement (such as "In my opinion, my cat is not a dog") states a piece of information (in this case, what the person's opinion on his cat is), so any statement can be included. As any prose obviously has a lot of statements, Wikipedia can be almost anything listed in WP:NOT. Let's not forget information in the computer world, either! Even meaningless characters are info in this context.

There is no reason not to include information. Information is information, sources or not, true or false. Having to follow WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:V hinders the addition of information, thus preventing you from improving Wikipedia, and they should be completely ignored for that reason. Any information can be considered useful, for one reason or another, and should be included regardless of WP:NOTABILITY (for example, it is useful to create an article about why a cat isn’t a dog). There is no way to judge one piece of information as more or less useful than another, either, so there is also no need to prioritise them; hence, WP:UNDUE is to be ignored.

As many studies have shown, a heightened emotional state enhances the strength of a memory being formed. Would you seriously expect disinterested readers to actually remember what they've just read? WP:NPOV and WP:FORMAL are all about increasing the monotony of Wikipedia and are thus decreasing emotional involvement. To hell with them! Use emotional, passionate language and don't be afraid to make bold, risky statements in controversial articles! The more controversial, the better! One must be sure to catch the reader's attention, evoke anger, laughter and/or disbelief, and create truly unforgettable articles.

See also[edit]

Wikipedia essays (?)

Essays on building, editing, and deleting content

Philosophy	Article content Articles must be written All Five Pillars are equally important Avoid vague introductions Be a reliable source Civil POV pushing Cohesion Competence is required Concede lost arguments Dissent is not disloyalty Don't lie Don't search for objections Editing Wikipedia is like visiting a foreign country Editors will sometimes be wrong Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia Explanationism External criticism of Wikipedia Here to build an encyclopedia Leave it to the experienced Levels of competence Most ideas are bad Need Neutrality of sources Not editing because of Wikipedia restriction The one question Oversimplification Paradoxes Paraphrasing POV and OR from editors, sources, and fields Process is important Product, process, policy Purpose Reasonability rule Systemic bias There is no seniority Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia Tendentious editing The role of policies in collaborative anarchy The rules are principles Trifecta Wikipedia in brief Wikipedia is an encyclopedia Wikipedia is a community Wikipedia is not RationalWiki
Article construction	100K featured articles Abandoned stubs Acronym overkill Adding images improves the encyclopedia Advanced article editing Advanced text formatting Akin's Laws of Article Writing Alternatives to the "Expand" template Amnesia test A navbox on every page An unfinished house is a real problem Articles have a half-life Autosizing images Avoid mission statements Be neutral in form Beef up that first revision Blind men and an elephant BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Build content to endure Cherrypicking Chesterton's fence Children's lit, adult new readers, & large-print books Citation overkill Citation underkill Common-style fallacy Concept cloud Creating controversial content Criticisms of society may be consistent with NPOV and reliability Deprecated sources Dictionaries as sources Don't demolish the house while it's still being built Don't get hung up on minor details Don't hope the house will build itself Don't panic Don't "teach the controversy" Editing on mobile devices Editors are not mindreaders Encourage the newcomers Endorsements (commercial) Featured articles may have problems Formatting bilateral relations articles Formatting bilateral relations templates Fruit of the poisonous tree Give an article a chance How to write a featured article Identifying and using independent sources History sources Law sources Primary sources Science sources Style guides Tertiary sources Ignore STRONGNAT for date formats Inaccuracy Introduction to structurism Mine a source Merge Test Minors and persons judged incompetent "Murder of" articles Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography Not everything needs a navbox Not everything needs a template Nothing is in stone Obtain peer review comments Organizing disambiguation pages by subject area Permastub Potential, not just current state Presentism Principle of Some Astonishment The problem with elegant variation Pro and con lists Printability Pruning article revisions Publicists Put a little effort into it Restoring part of a reverted edit Robotic editing Sham consensus Source your plot summaries Specialized-style fallacy Stub Makers Run an edit-a-thon Temporary versions of articles Tertiary-source fallacy There are no shortcuts to neutrality There is no deadline There is a deadline The deadline is now Try not to leave it a stub Understanding Wikipedia's content standards Walled garden What an article should not include Wikipedia is a work in progress Wikipedia is not a reliable source Wikipedia is not being written in an organized fashion The world will not end tomorrow Write the article first Writing better articles
Writing article content	Avoid thread mode Copyediting reception sections Coup Don't throw more litter onto the pile Gender-neutral language Myth vs fiction Proseline Use our own words We shouldn't be able to figure out your opinions Write the article first Writing about women Writing better articles
Removing or deleting content	Adjectives in your recommendations AfD is not a war zone Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions Arguments to make in deletion discussions Avoid repeated arguments Before commenting in a deletion discussion But there must be sources! Confusing arguments mean nothing Content removal Counting and sorting are not original research Delete or merge Delete the junk Deletion is not cleanup Does deletion help? Don't attack the nominator Don't confuse stub status with non-notability Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument Follow the leader How to save an article proposed for deletion I just don't like it Identifying blatant advertising Identifying test edits Immunity Keep it concise Liar liar pants on fire Nothing Nothing is clear Overzealous deletion Relisting can be abusive Relist bias The Heymann Standard Unopposed AFD discussion Wikipedia is not Whack-A-Mole Why was the page I created deleted? What to do if your article gets tagged for speedy deletion When in doubt, hide it in the woodwork No Encyclopedic Use

Essays on civility

The basics	Accepting other users Apology Contributing to complicated discussions Divisiveness Edit at your own pace Encouraging the newcomers Enjoy yourself Expect no thanks High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors How to be civil Maintaining a friendly space Negotiation Obsessive–compulsive disorder editors Please say please Relationships with academic editors Thank you Too long; didn't read Truce Unblock perspectives We are all Wikipedians here You have a right to remain silent
Philosophy	A weak personal attack is still wrong Advice for hotheads An uncivil environment is a poor environment Be the glue Beware of the tigers! Civility warnings Deletion as revenge Failure Forgive and forget It's not the end of the world Nobody cares Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals Old-fashioned Wikipedian values Profanity, civility, and discussions Revert notification opt-out Shadowless Fists of Death! Staying cool when the editing gets hot The grey zone The last word There is no Divine Right of Editors Most ideas are bad Nothing is clear Reader The rules of polite discourse There is no common sense Two wrongs don't make a right Wikipedia is not about winning Wikipedia should not be a monopoly Writing for the opponent
Dos	Assume good faith Assume the assumption of good faith Assume no clue Avoid personal remarks Avoid the word "vandal" Be excellent to one another Beyond civility Call a spade a spade Candor Deny recognition Desist Discussing cruft Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass Encourage full discussions Get over it How to lose Imagine others complexly Just drop it Keep it concise Keep it down to earth Mind your own business Say "MOBY" Mutual withdrawal Read before commenting Settle the process first
Don'ts	ALPHABETTISPAGHETTI Civil POV pushing Cyberbullying Don't accuse someone of a personal attack for accusing of a personal attack Don't be a fanatic Don't be a jerk Don't be an ostrich Don't be ashamed Don't be a WikiBigot Don't be high-maintenance Don't be inconsiderate Don't be obnoxious Don't be prejudiced Don't be rude Don't be the Fun Police Don't bludgeon the process Don't call a spade a spade Don't call people by their real name Don't call the kettle black Don't call things cruft Don't come down like a ton of bricks Don't cry COI Don't demand that editors solve the problems they identify Don't drink the consensus Kool-Aid Don't eat the troll's food Don't fight fire with fire Don't give a fuck Don't help too much Don't ignore community consensus Don't knit beside the guillotine Don't make a smarmy valediction part of your signature Don't remind others of past misdeeds Don't shout Don't spite your face Don't take the bait Don't template the regulars Don't throw your toys out of the pram Do not insult the vandals Griefing Nationalist editing No angry mastodons just madmen No Nazis No racists No Confederates No, you can't have a pony Passive aggression Please don't bite the newcomers POV railroad Superhatting There are no oracles There's no need to guess someone's preferred pronouns You can't squeeze blood from a turnip UPPERCASE
WikiRelations	WikiBullying WikiCrime WikiHarassment WikiHate WikiLawyering WikiLove WikiPeace

Essays on notability

Humorous essays

About essays

About essays	Essay guide Value of essays Difference between policies, guidelines and essays Don't cite essays as if they were policy Avoid writing redundant essays Finding an essay Quote your own essay
Policies and guidelines	About policies and guidelines Policies Guidelines How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance Policy writing is hard