વિકિપીડિયા:"નિયમોને અવગણો"નો અર્થ

“ જો નિયમ તમને વિકિપીડિયાના વિકાસ અને સંચાલનમાં બાધારૂપ જણાય તો તેને અવગણો. ” — વિકિપીડિયા:નિયમોને અવગણો

"નિયમોને અવગણો"નો અર્થ શું છે

નિયમો મોટા ભાગે તૂટવા માટે જ બનેલા હોય છે અને ઘણી વખત તો તે આળસુઓ માટે ઢાલ બને છે.
Rules are mostly made to be broken and are too often for the lazy to hide behind.

— ડગ્લાસ મેક્‍આર્થર (Douglas MacArthur)

નિયમો મૂર્ખાઓ માટે હોય છે.
Rules are for fools

— અજ્ઞાત.

બેશક નિયમો તોડો, સુંદર, સહેતુક અને સારી ઢબે તોડો. તે આવા અંત માટે જ તો બનેલા હોય છે.
By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist.

— રોબર્ટ બ્રિન્ઘર્સ્ટ (Robert Bringhurst)

આચારસંહિતા એ વાસ્તવિક નિયમો કરતાં વધુ તો તમે જેને "માર્ગદર્શિકા" કહી શકો તે હોય છે.
The code is more what you call "guidelines" than actual rules.

— કપ્તાન બાર્બોસ્સા (Captain Barbossa)

નિયમો એટલે માત્ર બાળકોને પછડાઈ પડતા રોકવાની આડશ.
The rules are only barriers to keep children from falling.

— માદામ દ સ્ટૈલ (Madame de Staël)

પાપી બનો અને નિર્ભયતાથી પાપ કરો[...]
Be a sinner and sin boldly[...]

— માર્ટિન લ્યુથર (Martin Luther)

વિકિપીડિયા પર યોગદાન આપવાનું ચાલુ કરતા પહેલાં તમારે કોઈપણ નિયમો વાંચવાની આવશ્યકતા નથી. તમે જે કરો છો તે વિચારવંતુ, અક્કલવાળું, બુદ્ધિપૂર્વકનું, વિવેકી જણાતું હોય, તો તે સામાન્ય રીતે યોગ્ય ગણાશે, અને યોગ્ય ન હોય તો પણ ચિંતા ન કરો. ખરાબમાં ખરાબ ક્ષતિઓ પણ સુધારવી સહેલી છે: દરેક પાનાની જૂની આવૃત્તિઓ તે પાનાનાં ઇતિહાસમાં સચવાયેલી હોય છે અને સહેલાઈથી તેને પાછું વાળી શકાય છે. જો અમે તમારા સંપાદન/સુધારા સાથે અસહમત હઈશું તો અમે તે વિશે વિચારપૂર્વક અને સજ્જનતાથી વાત કરીશું, અને શું કરવું એ પણ દર્શાવીશું. એટલે ચિંતા કરો નહિ. હિંમતવાન, સાહસિક, આત્મવિશ્વાસુ બનો, અને આ મુક્ત જ્ઞાનકોશની રચનામાં સાનંદ મદદરૂપ બનો.

• You are not required to learn the rules before contributing. Yes, we already said that, but it is worth repeating.
• Don't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged by each edit (see also Use common sense, below).
• Rules derive their power to compel not from being written down on a page labeled "guideline" or "policy", but from being a reflection of the shared opinions and practices of many editors (see also Wikipedia:Consensus).
• Most rules are ultimately descriptive, not prescriptive; they describe existing current practice. They sometimes lag behind the practices they describe (see also Wikipedia:Product, process, policy).
• Wikilawyering doesn't work. Loopholes and technicalities do not exist on the Wiki. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; nor moot court, nor nomic, nor Mao.
• The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored (see also Wikipedia:The rules are principles).
• Following the rules is less important than using good judgment and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgment is not displayed only by those who agree with you (see also Wikipedia:Civility).

ઇતિહાસ

બધા જ નિયમોને અવગણો એ વિકિપીડિયાનો જૂનો નિયમ છે જે લેરી સંગરએ ૨૦૦૧ની સાલમાં બનાવ્યો છે. original wording એ આજના કરતાં થોડું અલગ છે. એમ કહેવાય છે કે " જે નિયમો તમને વિકિપીડિયામાં ચિંતાજનક કે હતાશ કરતા જણાય તો તમે એ નિયમને સંપૂર્ણપણે અવગણીને તમારું યોગદાન વિકિપીડિયામાં કરી શકો છો.

પરંતુ એ વાતનું ધ્યાન રાખો કે નિયમો અવગણવા એ બરાબર છે, પણ તમારે એ નિયમ તોડવાની ખરેખર જરૂર છે કે કેમ એના વિષે પણ વિચારો.

"નિયમોને અવગણો"નો અર્થ શું નથી

કેટલીક વખત મર્યાદા બાંધવી જરૂરી છે

Pedantry and mastery are opposite attitudes toward rules. To apply a rule to the letter, rigidly, unquestioningly, in cases where it fits and in cases where it does not fit, is pedantry... To apply a rule with natural ease, with judgment, noticing the cases where it fits, and without ever letting the words of the rule obscure the purpose of the action or the opportunities of the situation, is mastery.

— George Pólya

Ignore all rules – including this one.

Despite its name, "Ignore all rules" does not sabotage the other rules. Its purpose is to keep them from sabotaging what we're doing here: building a free encyclopedia. Rules have zero importance compared with that goal. If they aid that goal, good. If they interfere with it, they are instantly negated.

• "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. Rule ignorers must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus.
• "Ignore all rules" does not stop you from pointing out a rule to someone who has broken it, but do consider that his or her judgment may have been correct, and that they almost certainly thought it was (see also Wikipedia:Assume good faith).
• "Ignore all rules" is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons.
• "Ignore all rules" is not an exemption from accountability. You're still responsible for reasonably foreseeable effects of your actions on the encyclopedia and on other editors.
• "Ignore all rules" is not an invitation to use Wikipedia for purposes contrary to that of building a free encyclopedia (see also Wikipedia:About and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not).
• "Ignore all rules" does not mean there is necessarily an exception to every rule. A typical copyright violation, for instance, does not make for a better free encyclopedia.
• "Ignore all rules" does not mean that you can violate Wikipedia:Office actions without being blocked for disruption.

સામાન્ય બુદ્ધિ (કોઠાસૂઝ) વાપરો

"WP:COMMON" redirects here. For common outcomes of deletion discussions, see WP:OUTCOMES. For use of common names in article titles, see WP:COMMONNAME. For linking common words, see WP:OVERLINK. For information on the Wikimedia Commons, see WP:COMMONS.

Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. Similarly, just because something is not forbidden in a written document, or is even explicitly permitted, doesn't mean it's a good idea in the given situation. Our goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers. Being able to articulate "common sense" reasons why a change helps the encyclopedia is good, and editors should not ignore those reasons because they don't include a bunch of policy shortcuts. The principle of the rules—to make Wikipedia and its sister projects thrive—is more important than the letter. Editors must use their best judgment.

Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy.

આ સામાન્ય બુદ્ધિ નથી

Good sense is of all things in the world the most equally distributed, for everybody thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those most difficult to please in all other matters never desire more of it than they already possess.

— René Descartes

When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. Exhorting another editor to "just use common sense" is likely to be taken as insulting, for good reasons. If in a particular case you feel that literally following a rule harms the encyclopedia, or that doing something which the rules technically allow degrades it, then instead of telling someone who disagrees to use common sense, just focus on explaining why ignoring the rules will improve Wikipedia in that instance.

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. While it's quite acceptable to explain your own actions by saying, "it seemed like common sense to me," you should be careful not to imply that other editors are lacking in common sense, which may be seen as uncivil. Wikipedians come from diverse ethnic, religious, political, cultural and ideological backgrounds and have vastly different perceptions. Other editors are likely to ascribe very different meanings and values to words and concepts than you, so try to state your arguments as fully as possible. Citing concrete policies and guidelines is likely to be more effective than simply citing "common sense" and leaving it at that.

રેખાકૃતિ