Wikipedia talk:Use common sense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the discussion

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] Common sense

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)