Googology Wiki
Register
Advertisement
Googology Wiki

Ignore all rules

I think 'Ignore all rules' is not good. For example: someone creates an article without sources, it will be deleted. Why? (S)he ignored the rule: 'You should at least cite something'. But (s)he just ignored all rules. So we might have to change some rules. Also, ignore 'do not vandalize' is also not good. In fact, I can't think up a rule that won't mess up the wiki when ignored. Wythagoras (talk) 06:48, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

We are humans and formal rules aren't necessary for us. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ contribs) 07:13, March 9, 2014 (UTC)
The entire text of the rule is:
"If a rule prevents you from maintaining or improving Googology Wiki, ignore it."
In other words, you can ignore all rules only if you intend to improve the wiki. We don't add that last clause because if you don't intend to improve the wiki, why would you be on here at all?
The purpose of IAR is to show that rules are flexible. They have exceptions, and those exceptions are when following the rule makes the wiki worse. Why not just fix the rule, then? It's a waste of time, and a rule might have tons of exceptions not worth covering in a policy page.
IAR does not create a liar's paradox. Googology Wiki's policies don't constitute a formal system of logic, even though our wiki involves a lot of discussion about formal systems :P FB100Ztalkcontribs 09:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the current community needs more precise rules. Otherwise, do we have so many examples for which "ignore all rules" rule was helpful? Since the existing other rules are appropriate to keep the wiki sound, we do not need to ignore them except for the "ignore all rules" rule. It just prevents precise arguments on rules, and hence it is better to remove it now. Do anyone have an opposite opnion? If nobody does, then I will delete it.

p-adic 00:53, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

I propose to replace "ignore all rules" to "the rules can be changed if the community needs it" for making it liberal yet formal and non-cotroversial. Triakula (talk) 09:38, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
I agree that the IAR rule is unnecessary at the current state of this wiki. Actually IAR rule was helpful when the community was not so large, and it was better to avoid making many rules. As the community has grown so large, we have established so many rules based on the agreement with the members. Many rules written here has been respected by many users on this wiki, and this means that the importance of the rules has grown compared to the starting era of this wiki. Actually "improving Googology Wiki" is a subjective criteria. Some people may think that the state of having lots of unsourced numbers on the wiki is "improved" state of Wiki. IAR rule gives excuse for such people. Of course there are some exceptions on the rule, but such exceptions should be at least "agreed on" with users, if not written explicitly in the policy page. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 09:49, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
One thing I'm going to say is that Wikipedia has an "ignore all rules" policy despite it being the largest wiki on the world. Maybe think about it? -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 16:00, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. I found a page where Larry Sanger, who proposed the IAR rule, says:
The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule ... This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc.
The creater of the rule also thinks that the rule was a temporal one. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:05, January 27, 2020 (UTC)
The IAR rule of the wikipedia links to Wikipedia has no firm rules. Maybe we can adapt this page and write "We have no firm rules. Sometimes improving Googology wiki requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.", if we want. 🐟 Fish fish fish ... 🐠 17:39, January 27, 2020 (UTC)

Revision

I think this needs to be revised to help with ambiguity and to accomodate with things not really enforced anymore. Is there a second? If someone does, I'll write a "proposed article" somewhere like google docs and share it here to see if everyone agrees. But I definately think it needs changed. 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 21:17, May 9, 2018 (UTC)

No second from Cloudy? 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 18:57, May 10, 2018 (UTC)
Instead of google docs, I suggest writing your proposal somewhere on this wiki. Somewhere like User:Nnn6nnn/Policy draft or something. -- ☁ I want more clouds! ⛅ 11:49, May 11, 2018 (UTC)


Ok. I'll do that! 👍 nnn6nnn likes this. (talk) 19:23, May 11, 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Wikipedia

I think the rule about Wikipedia being a bad source should be removed. Just look here. ubersketch📞 22:10, April 28, 2019 (UTC)

A "source" does not mean a "currently accurate information". It should be more stable and more reproducible. If a referred information is publicly edittable, then it does not ensure that it will display the same information in the future. Then it does not work as a source of an article. If a referred information is not a first source but lacks a link to a first source, then it does not give us a way to access a first source. It is bad for us to judge whether it is correct or not, even if it is eventually accurate.
Therefore publicly edittable information and unsourced information which is not a first source are not accademically regarded as valid sources even if they are currently accurate. Of course, the level of the stability and the reproducibility of sources allowed in this wiki is not so high as academic level, but is not so low that we allow publicly edittable information based on insufficient sources. Since you just referred to the accuracy by saying "just look here", I guess that you just forget these important factors.
p-adic 22:58, April 28, 2019 (UTC)


Updating log on the rules on copyright

(This comment is just for a log.) I updated the site policy on copyright through voting here.

p-adic 05:59, February 17, 2020 (UTC)

@Cloudy176

This policy is based on the discussion by members of this community. Even if you disagree with it, please listen to other members instead of deleting it. Seriously, what are you doing?

p-adic 06:20, February 18, 2020 (UTC)


Personal Websites as Sources

In my opinion, a personal website can be a source of a number only when the website clarifies that the number is created by the author or the creator allows it as a source.

For example, Bowers' website can be the first source of the numbers created by Bowers himself. On the other hand, if it included a description like "Goooogoooool is a well-known number defined as 10000000", then it should not be dealt with as a source of Goooogoooool. Similarly, Denis's website can be the first source of Denis's numbers, and hyp cos's website can be the first source of hyp cos's numbers.

Of course, sufficiently "reliable" websites can be sources. Therefore I should clarify the borderline:

  1. Allam's website was used by himself as a sources of his own numbers and his fake results on known numbers. It can be the first source of his own numbers, but can never be a source of those fake results unless he specify reproducible explanations.
  2. 2000 steps analysis was referred to as an evidence of several fake properties of functions in this community. It deals with unspecified functions and includes many errors. Therefore it can never be a source of results on actual (specified) functions.
  3. This personal website is frequently used as a source of illion numbers. It just states that the website is based on the author's "knowledge", which is obviously unreliable. Since the author is not the creator of them, it should not be a source. For such traditional names of numbers, there is no "first source", but peer-reviewed publishment can be a reliable source. For example, online encyclopedia which is freely editable is not appropriate, because it is not peer-reviewed by definition.
  4. Numberpedia is used as a souce of numbers by Garrett Wilkinson. Since the encyclopedia is not freely editable and is created by the person, it can be the first source. (But there is an issue on the notability. See its talk page.) Also, it includes many known numbers, but it can never be a source of them.

Does anyone have an opinion? If nobody disagrees with me, I will clarify this restriction in the article. Thank you.

p-adic 23:38, April 1, 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagreed, I add the explanation to the policy.
p-adic 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


Proposal to add an explanation on retrieval date

We know that a source can be distinguishable from other sources. For example, if a website is frequently updated and gives different explanations, then the website itself is not a reproducible source at all unless the versions are clearly distinguishable. Therefore we traditionally distinguish such a variable website by adding retrieval date. Since there is a user who cannot understand it and insist not to add the retrieval date because there is no description in the site policy, it is better to add the description in the policy. If nobody disagrees the proposal, I will edit the policy.

p-adic 22:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since nobody disagrees, I will add the explanation.
p-adic 09:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Proposal

Users sometimes removement constructible descriptions, mainly because they feel that articles are long. But the length of articles itself should not be a reason of removement, because the attitude completely ignores others' effort to create articles. For example, if there are many common mistakes, we write warnings in the corresponding article for beginners to avoid the same mistakes. However, if a user who already know the common mistake, possibly because there is a description in the article, then he or she might regard the description as a trivial description, and might remove the description.

More awfully, several users sometimes intentionally removes correct and sourced information in order to vandalise the article. For example, they randomly remove both correct information and incorrect information, and bother others to revert the removement of the correct information. Although it is a common sense that it is better not to remove constructible description unless we give a discussion, I propose to add a rule to forbid descriptions in an article unless they are incorrect, they are written by vandalists during their vandalisation, or they are decided to remove by a discussion in the talk page.

If nobody disagrees, I will add this rule.

p-adic 22:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree if you mean "if they are incorrect", although if an explanation written by a vandal is helpful and constructive I might personally add it back later (although I won't guarantee that I'll check all revisions by the vandal) C7X (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Advertisement