The one question

Essay

The one question

This essay found at Wikipedia:The one question has one author with more than ten edits; the complete list can be found in the page statistics. It is also available in audio form in the link below. – ed.

This is an essay on the Ignore all rules policy.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

Shortcut

WP:1QWP:1Q

On Wikipedia, a great deal of virtual ink is spent debating if various policies, guidelines, and essays apply to specific situations or not, or debating secondary questions about whether or not they have sufficient consensus to apply. When you find yourself in that situation, take a step back, ignore all rules, and ask yourself the one question:

Does it make Wikipedia better or not?

Yes	→	Do it, support the policy, keep the article, unblock, etc.
No	→	Don't do it, oppose the policy, delete the article, block, etc.

Answer that question first, then pick whatever policy, guideline, essay, or argument supports the answer. Don't flip the order. If you look at a policy page first, then decide that something is good/bad because that's the conclusion of the policy, you forgot to ask yourself the one question. And you could very well end up supporting an outcome which does not make Wikipedia better.

Listen to this page (2 minutes)

This audio file was created from a revision of this page dated 9 July 2020, and does not reflect subsequent edits.

← Previous "Essay"

In this issue

9 September 2025 (all comments)

News and notes

In the media

Disinformation report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

Then, of course, the next question arises: "What does 'better' mean?". And if you ask ten different editors that question, I suspect you'll get eleven different answers. It would be awfully nice if it were this simple, but if that were the case, we wouldn't need those barrels of virtual ink. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this particularly needs highlighting. It's like a coach telling their sports team that he's got one strategy for them: do things that help win the game, and don't do things that lose the game. Great. True. But not particularly helpful. (By comparison, the IAR guideline does express a useful maxim: that the rules aren't everything. Essays on when precisely that ignoring the rules is a good idea are worthwhile, but this doesn't seem to offer a guide to that.) SnowFire (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the issue is that many editors apparently follow rules for the rules'sake, instead of questioning what happens when they are mindlessly follow. Then of course, we all have different opinions, but many even stop discussing about them because "it's in the guideline". cyclopia ^speak! 06:35, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even following the rules for rule's sake. It's debating which rule has more consensus than the other, or arguing 'I don't have to WP:AGF, it's a guideline, not policy', or 'WP:TE is an essay, not a guideline, I don't have to follow it' or any sort of 'it's a x-type of consensus, not a y-type of consensus' and focus more on the status of the page than its arguments. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get the latest headlines on your user page – just add {{Signpost-subscription}}.

Home

About