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]

Great work, Headbomb! Schwede66 08:59, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I like Antandrus's version slightly better in being pithier and more specific about when to ask this question. Nardog (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Hadn't seen this before. Worth putting up in a Signpost article. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Well done, I support the critical approach of this. It's a moral suasion. Could be reformulated to sth like: Embrace the encyclopedian Vision!, or else: Resist mindless W. habits!

While not being a cynic I'd nevertheless say: anybody among us in wikipedia who is accustomed to social media competition as a dedicated follower of social moods will not even consider maxims like this One Question. No speech, no claim will ever turn selfish individuals or groups into altruistic ones, except for a short time maybe. -- Just N. (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think this essay makes Wikipedia better. I don't think this essay shows understanding of the purpose and value of policies and guidelines. Following its principle, I should delete the essay, and then go find a policy (such as IAR) that justifies it. SilkTork (talk) 07:14, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, a twofold answer to SilkTork seems IMHO necessary. 1. While it's not at all nice or diplomatic what SilkTork has said I'd say it's absolutely legitimate to contradict the essay and deny its pragmatic value. 2. I do not at all agree to the violent conclusion ("Following its principle, I should delete the essay") which would certainly be an action of vandalism and end of communication to all others who are not consenting to your opinion. A case of arson, and of course you know that. The fundament of any social or philosophical debate should always be: not to resort to violence. Not even in menacing imaginings. -- My personal conclusion in two questions: Is indeed that essay completely out of time and obsolete? Maybe are even most philosophical (non-technical) debates in a non-homogeneous audience (Wikipedia) no longer possible and fertile? -- Just N. (talk) 15:17, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Just N.'s comment, I think I will follow the principle of the essay and block Just N. as I've asked the question, and I feel that would make Wikipedia better. I'll just need now to go find a policy that will justify it. I think IAR will do the job.

Just in case Just N. gets alarmed, I am being sarcastic to underline the weakness of the essay. Our policies and guidelines are built on experience, best practice, and consensus, and should be what guides our actions. The notion that we unilaterally decide that we think it is better to delete something or block someone, and then go look for a policy that best supports our actions is kinda the reverse of how we should be doing things. I have a quote from User:Agricolae on my talk page which some time ago I found quite wise, and felt I would post it there to remind me: "Our text should arise as a summary of the reliable sources, rather than editors first deciding what they want to say and then looking for sources." SilkTork (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]