විකිපීඩියා:"සියලු නීති නොසලකා හරින්න" යන්නෙහි අදහස
 | මෙම ලිපිය පරිවර්තනය කළ යුතුය කරුණාකර මෙම ලිපිය සිංහල භාෂාවට පරිවර්තනය කිරීමෙන් දායකවන්න. |
 | මෙම පිටුව ඉංග්‍රීසි ව්‍යාපෘතියෙන් මෙහි ගෙනවිත් ඇත. අන්තර්ගතය අපගේ ව්‍යාපෘතිය සමඟ 100% නොගැලපෙනමුත් අපගේ අවශ්‍යතාවයන් වලට අනුකූලව ගොඩනගා ගැනීම සඳහා මූලික පියවර ලෙස භාවිතා කළ හැකිය. |
| මෙය විකිපීඩියා:සියලු නීති නොසලකා හරින්න ප්‍රතිපත්තිය පිළිබඳව පැහැදිලි කිරීමේ රචනාවකි. This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. මෙම පිටුව විකිපීඩියාවේ ප්‍රතිපත්ති සහ මාර්ගෝපදේශන අතුරින් එකක් නොවේ, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. |
 | මෙම පිටුවේ අඩංගු කරුණු සැකෙවින්: විකිපීඩියාව සංස්කරණය කිරීම යනු වැඩිදියුණු කිරීම් කිරීම මිස නීති රීති අනුගමනය කිරීමම නොවේ. කෙසේ වෙතත්, WP:IAR ප්‍රයෝජනවත් නොවන සංස්කරණයන් කිරීමට මෙය හේතුවක් ලෙස භාවිතා නොකළ යුතුය. |
| “ | නීතිය ඔබව විකිපීඩියා වැඩිදියුණු කිරීමෙන් හෝ නඩත්තු කිරීමෙන් වළක්වන්නේ නම්, එය නොසලකා හරින්න. | ” |
| — විකිපීඩියා:සියලු නීති නොසලකා හරින්න | ||
"සියලු නීති නොසලකා හරින්න" යන්නෙහි අදහස
සංස්කරණයරීති බොහෝ දුරට කඩ කිරීමට සාදා ඇති අතර ඒවා බොහෝ විට කම්මැලියන්ට පිටුපස සැඟවීමට නොහැකි තරම්ය.
— ඩග්ලස් මැක්ආතර්[1]
නීති මෝඩයන් සඳහා වේ.
— (පුහුණුකරුවන්/පෙළඹවන්නන් විසින් භාවිතා කරන පරිදි)[2]
සියල්ලෙන්ම නීති කඩන්න, ඒවා ලස්සනට, හිතාමතා සහ හොඳින් කඩ කරන්න. එය ඔවුන් පවතින එක් අන්තයකි.
— රොබට් බ්‍රින්හර්ස්ට්[3]
නීති මෝඩයන්ගේ කීකරුකම සහ ඥානවන්ත මිනිසුන්ගේ මග පෙන්වීම සඳහාය.
— ඩග්ලස් බඩර්
විකිපීඩියාවට දායක වීමට පෙර ඔබ කිසිදු රීතියක් කියවීමට අවශ්‍ය නැත. ඔබ සංවේදී යැයි පෙනෙන දේ කරන්නේ නම්, එය සාමාන්‍යයෙන් නිවැරදි වනු ඇත, එය නිවැරදි නොවේ නම්, කරදර නොවන්න. නරකම වැරදි පවා නිවැරදි කිරීමට පහසුය: පිටුවක පැරණි අනුවාද සංශෝධන ඉතිහාසය තුළ පවතින අතර ඒවා ප්‍රතිසාධනය කළ හැක. අපි ඔබේ වෙනස්කම් සමඟ එකඟ නොවන්නේ නම්, අපි ඒ ගැන කල්පනාකාරීව හා ආචාරශීලීව කතා කරමු, අපි කුමක් කළ යුතු දැයි සොයා බලමු. ඒ නිසා කලබල වෙන්න එපා. නිර්භීත වන්න, සහ මෙම නිදහස් විශ්වකෝෂය ගොඩනැගීමට උදව් කිරීමෙන් සතුටක් ලබන්න.
- 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).
ඉතිහාසය
සංස්කරණයIgnore all rules is one of the oldest rules on Wikipedia, written by Larry Sanger in 2001. The original wording was a bit different from today's version. It said: "If rules make you nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business."
Note that while ignoring all rules is all right, it is subtly but importantly different from deliberately breaking them. Meditate on that carefully before you actually apply this rule.
"සියලු නීති නොසලකා හැරීම" යන්නෙන් අදහස් නොවන දෑ
සංස්කරණයPedantry 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.
A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities.
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 prevent the enforcement of certain policies. For example, you cannot violate Wikipedia:No legal threats without being blocked.
- "Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is not a carte blanche. Rule-breakers 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 their judgement 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" is not a Get Out of Jail Free card. If you are blocked or sanctioned for a rule-breaking edit that does not improve the encyclopedia, then you may not use "Ignore all rules" as a reason to be unblocked or unsanctioned.
සාමන්‍ය බුද්ධිය භාවිතා කරන්න
සංස්කරණයWikipedia has many policies or what many consider "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 reference a bunch of shortcut links to official policies. 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.
There is no common sense
සංස්කරණයGood 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.
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.
Diagram and flowchart
සංස්කරණය
Suppose you have an idea…
- Are you sure that your idea is a good one by common sense and that it improves the encyclopedia?
- No: DON'T DO IT
- Yes:
- Does it break the rules?
- No: DO IT
- Yes:
- Is that because the rules are wrong?
- No: Ignore the rules and DO IT
- Yes: Change the rules and DO IT
- Is that because the rules are wrong?
- Does it break the rules?
See also
සංස්කරණයReferences
සංස්කරණය- ^ Ganoe, William (1962). MacArthur Close-Up. p. 137.
- ^ Grayson, Dr. Randall. "Adaptability". සම්ප්‍රවේශය 7 September 2012.
- ^ Bringhurst, Robert (2005). The Elements of Typographic Style (3.1 ed.). Hartley & Marks. p. 10. ISBN 0-88179-206-3.
- ^ Pólya, George (1945). How to Solve It. Princeton Science Library. p. 148. ISBN 0-691-11966-X.
- ^ "A World Split Apart". National Review. Harvard Class Day Exercises. 8 June 1978. 8 June 2003 දින මුල් පිටපත වෙතින් සංරක්ෂණය කරන ලදී.
- ^ Descartes, René (1637). Le Discours de la Méthode. Part I, incipit.
Le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée; car chacun pense en être si bien pourvu, que ceux même qui sont les plus difficiles à contenter en toute autre chose n'ont point coutume d'en désirer plus qu'ils en ont.