GuildWiki talk:Use Common Sense

It's a lofty ideal, but ineffective to use in decision making. Example (well discussed, please don't restart discussion on the merits here): When Auron ignored the RfA and promoted R.Phalange, did he have UCS going for him by ignoring the rules, or did the people who disagreed with him have UCS going for him, and Auron should just have thought "it's alright to give in to peer pressure"? This is not a rhetoric question; please try to answer it. Some examples where UCS actually would have helped decide an issue (and how) would also be neat to have. --◄mendel► 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

UCS would've helped at the Acorns massacre. If you read my line-up of improbabilities, you'd know how it would've helped. --- -- (s)talkpage 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Does any one else find irony in the statement "Rules derive their authoritative power from being a reflection of the common beliefs and practices of the community, not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy." Sometimes it's alright to give in to peer pressure."? How about we use common sense instead of making a policy about it?Entrea [Talk] 21:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need this policy. What comes up in discussions more often is community consensus, not common sense, and the former has the advantage of being easier to detect when established. --◄mendel► 19:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• Don't follow written instructions to the letter.
• Sometimes, site policy just cannot stay current with the practices it describes. Addendum: so please change it or request for change yourself.
• "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule." The common purpose of providing a quality resource for Guild Wars players trumps both.
• Obeying the rules is less important than improving the site. -> The ultimate goal is always to improve the site, even if that may conflict with following the rules. (needs bettar wording though)

I like these and feel they should be incorporated somewhere. Scrap the rest. (T/C) 01:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In nswer to your edit summarry: {{Y}} happened to {{Yes}}Entrea [Talk] 01:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

{{Yup}} happened to {{Y}} now. --◄mendel► 14:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This policy is simply a poor idea. "Common sense" is extremely subjective. Policies are written to clarify procedures, not to introduce new gray areas. 02:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't follow written instructions - we already had Guildwiki:Disregard all rules, and it failed.

site policy just cannot stay current - yes, it can, if people would bother to keep it current

The spirit of the rule is open to interpretation. Why not write down the spirit, then?

less important than improving the site - what improves the site, is open to interpretation, and I would not agree to a blanket "the end justifies the means".

A GuildWiki:Community Consensus article could go somewhat like this:

1. Guildwiki is run by its community, and the will of the community ultimately determines its shape. The wiki is what its users make of it.
2. Sometimes the community wants to clarify its will by writing a policy. For example, we might provide guidelines for conflicts or reference material for new users. We write a policy when we don't want to discuss or explain the same things over and over.
3. If the community arrives at a consensus through discussion or prolonged, undisputed practice, it trumps any policies that may conflict with it. (It may be indicated to update the conflicting policies.) Don't do policy-lawyering if everybody else disagrees with you.

I believe this covers about all of Entropy's suggestions, albeit at another level. Comments? What have I left out? Should this be added to GuildWiki:Policy? --◄mendel► 09:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what I just said more or less. (T/C) 13:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad it is. I believe it is more, because it has more of the unwritten spirit in it (if that makes any sense). --◄mendel► 19:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"The spirit of the rule is open to interpretation. Why not write down the spirit, then?" Because it's impossible to write down every single possible way of vandalizing a page in order to say "don't do this". It's impossible to write down every single possible personal attack. People will, however, find loopholes with what you've written down, and since you can't account for every possible situation, you follow the spirit of the policy rather than the letter of it. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 14:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)