Wikipedia:Flexibility is essential, even in applying notability standards
 | This is an essay on notability. 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. |
 | This page in a nutshell: No standard is unbending—not even Wikipedia's notability standards. At the end of the day, the question is whether an edit provides a net improvement to the encyclopedia, not what precise verbiage a guideline uses. |
"If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."
— WP:IGNORE, official policy of the English Wikipedia
First principles
[edit]We should set one thing straight from the very beginning: Wikipedia has rules. It has policies. It has guidelines. And those all matter. Whenever possible, you should endeavor to follow them. But Wikipedia policy is also clear about one very important thing: a formalistic need to "follow the rules" should never supersede (or worse, obstruct) the core mission of the encyclopedia.[1] That mission is as simple as it is noble: to provide a "widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge."[2] Information worth knowing is worth including.
What the guidelines try to do
[edit]Wikipedia's community guidelines—and its notability guidelines in particular—emerge from a similarly noble aim. They attempt to provide a clear barometer that editors can use to determine what information is "worth knowing" and instruct on how best to go about including it. They try to make the process objective. And, in most cases, they can play this role rather successfully. Reference to Wikipedia:Notability, for instance, is usually pretty instructive as to what's worth including. In some instances, these guidelines even come with useful rubrics and specific tests you can use to evaluate articles.[3] As far as telling you that something should be included, these standards are virtually infallible. If an article passes the Wikipedia:Notability test, then by all means include it.
But guidelines can fall short in other respects. It should be a relatively uncontroversial proposition that the grand question of "what's worth knowing" can hardly be reduced to a single rubric or checklist. The mere fact that an article fails to satisfy a guideline is by no means a final word on the bigger issue of whether its inclusion on Wikipedia is in furtherance of the project's core mission. That final word requires some editorial discretion. And editorial discretion calls for flexibility.
Flexibility
[edit]So how can you reconcile a need to be flexible with respect for community guidelines? The answer, it turns out, is really rather simple: just think of the guidelines as a starting place. Go through the rubric, follow the checklist—see what it has to say. And, if it tells you to include something, then include it. But if it doesn't, then dig a little bit deeper. Set aside the precise verbiage of the applicable guideline. Consider the higher question: does the article share something worth knowing? Would including it advance the interest in the "appropriate Wikipedia coverage and handling of a subject"?[4] If the answer is yes, then include it. And if others disagree, discuss it—reach a Wikipedia:Consensus. But do that work and have that conversation; don't just defer to guideline verbiage.
A final thing to keep in mind: we are not wikilawyers. We shouldn't strive to be. We are not here to discuss and debate the proper interpretation of guidelines. We are here to help maintain an encyclopedia. We are editors and we should behave like editors. Be flexible and always remember what we are here to do.