Wikipedia talk:The rules are principles

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Nice essay... a comment

On using the 3rr rule example... you might also want to mention the bit aobut how making two edits one one day, and the same edit on the next day can also be construed as 3rr... ie that while the strict wording says "3 reverts in one 24 hour period", the intent is to prevent edit warring, and so can be more broadly implimented. I think there is some wording to that effect at WP:GAME.

Otherwise... I sure like the intent of your essay. It will probably come back to bite me sometime when I am in an heated discussion with some other editor over something I see as a policy infraction (we all end up quoting the "rules" at times... I at least try to do so appropriately), but so be it. I hope this gets general acceptance. I'll keep my eye on it. Blueboar 02:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding something about "context is everything"? In many instances, editors look for a hard rule rather than looking at a dispute in the necessary context. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked a few things to take in both of your suggestions. I also expanded the essay in places. Thoughts? Vassyana 05:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it! Especially Context is everything, shades of my RfA comments..;) I'll review more over the weekend. Nice! Dreadstar † 06:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is really good. I don't see anything very controversial here. After it gets a little more exposure, it might be appropriate to link to it from WP:Policies and guidelines. I think maybe the title of the article could be improved, because I wasn't quite sure what the essay was about just based on the title, until I read it, but I can't think of anything better right now. COGDEN 19:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think of a better title, by all means be bold and move it. :) Thanks for the compliments. I'll post it to the village pump (policy) for people to review. If it withstands some reasonable scrutiny, I'll take your suggestion to link it. Cheers! Vassyana 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance is not law

I get involved voluntarily in planning disputes and in the UK the High Court issued a judgement on this. It is of interest because it gives a formal view on the use of guidance. I thought you might be interested:

It also must be clearly kept in mind that Government Planning Policy Guidance Notes are just that – guidance, although they cannot be ignored, they are not so rigid that they must be followed to the letter. In S & Ors v London Borough of Brent & Ors. Oxfordshire County Council, Head Teacher of Elliott School & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 693 (17th May, 2002), paragraph 16 of that judgement Lord Justice Schiemann states: "The first consequence of this is that Appeal Panels, and schools too, must keep in mind that guidance is no more than that: it is not direction, and certainly not rules. Any Appeal Panel which, albeit on legal advice, treats the Secretary of State's Guidance as something to be strictly adhered to or simply follows it because it is there will be breaking its statutory remit in at least three ways: it will be failing to exercise its own independent judgement; it will be treating guidance as if it were rules; and it will, in lawyers' terms, be fettering its own discretion. Equally, however, it will be breaking its remit if it neglects the guidance. The task is not an easy one".

Spenny 09:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what this says, essentially, is: "That 'Guidance is but Guidance' is now Law." :>) Blueboar 12:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fettering its own discretion. I like that.... : ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love "fettering its own discretion" and use it often. It is really saying, there are guidelines, but if you can make a reasoned justification for setting aside the guidelines for the Greater Good, by all means do so. I think the explanation of IAR does say this, but not concisely. Spenny 08:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken this and integrated the sense of it into the lede. I've additionally added a "purpose of the rules" section to help give the whole thing a little more context. Vassyana 16:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]