³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981308293³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See AvoidBiasDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981308639³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³21³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981308639³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³30³3summary³3* added "delete patent nonsense" entry³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981308909³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³22³1username³2JerryMuelver³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981308909³2ip³2148.78.249.20³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³31³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981309339³2id³21215³2host³2148.78.249.xxx³2revision³23³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981309339³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your mere opinions either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981408181³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³24³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981408181³2ip³224.234.246.58³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³30³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedian""s support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981495604³2id³21001³2host³2dhcp058.246.lvcm.com³2revision³25³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981495604³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3minor³31³3newauthor³30³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981495746³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³26³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981495746³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³30³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981496073³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³27³1username³2³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981496073³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981500734³2id³2111³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³28³1username³2JimboWales³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981500734³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³31³3minor³30³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales

''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --JimboWales

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981506918³2id³21025³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³29³1username³2AyeSpy³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981506918³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy

''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --JimboWales

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy (fervently)

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
----
'''Give the author a chance:'''  I propose that we add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text, when we disagree with an author but to delete or re-write portions of his material would substnatially alter its meaning.  Then the author may make changes in his own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a _____Talk page.  When one encounters obvious vandalism of another's work, he should feel free to Delete PatentNonsense.

Supporters of this rule include AyeSpy
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2981507041³2id³21084³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³210³1username³2AyeSpy³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2981507041³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2newauthor³30³3minor³31³3text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy

''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --JimboWales

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy (fervently)

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
----
'''Give the author a chance:'''  I propose that we add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text, when we disagree with an author but to delete or re-write portions of his material would substnatially alter its meaning.  Then the author may make changes in his own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a _____Talk page.  When one encounters obvious vandalism of another's work, he should feel free to Delete PatentNonsense.

Supporters of this rule include AyeSpy

''See GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate''
³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2982359604³2id³21084³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³211³1username³2LarrySanger³2name³2text_default³2version³21³2ts³2982359604³2ip³2209.66.79.109³2data³2text³3Since this is a wiki, there are no editors.  We must rely on developing our own good habits and occasionally taking a bit of time to correct the results of someone else's bad habits.  But it might help to specifically enunciate particularly rules that ''some'' of us wish we'd make an effort to follow.  So here's a page containing such rules.  Two suggested features of this page are: add your name to a list of the rule's "supporters" to get an idea of how strongly WikiPedians support a rule, and "[nameofrule]Debate" pages where we can talk about the merits of the proposed rule.  (The latter will help keep this page nice and clean for those people who are mainly interested in the rules themselves.)

See also NamingConventions and RefactoringPolicy.

----

'''Ignore all rules:''' If rules make your nervous and depressed, and not desirous of participating in the wiki, then ignore them entirely and go about your business.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger, WojPob, JimboWales, AyeSpy

''I now pleasantly ponder the paradox encountered by those who seek to rigorously follow this rule.'' --JimboWales

''See IgnoreAllRulesDebate''

----

'''Explain jargon:''' It would be great if you would hyperlink all jargon (area-specific terminology that someone who might happen not to have had a college course in your subject might not understand) and explain it, and then explain all the jargon you use to explain ''that,'' until you've reached terms that ordinary educated people can understand.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy (fervently)

''See ExplainJargonDebate''

----

'''Avoid bias:''' Since this is an encyclopedia, after a fashion, it would be best if you represented your controversial views either (1) not at all, (2) on *Debate, *Talk, or *Discussion pages linked from the bottom of the page that you're tempted to grace, or (3) represented in a fact-stating fashion, i.e., which attributes a particular opinion to a particular person or group, rather than asserting the opinion as fact.  (3) is strongly preferred.  See the NeutralPointOfView page for elaboration.

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver AyeSpy

''See AvoidBiasDebate''

----

'''Delete patent nonsense:''' I propose that we delete PatentNonsense when we run across it, and then put it on the BadJokesAndOtherDeletedNonsense page.  The problem with this is that people disagree about what is PatentNonsense.  So be careful, anyway.  It's possible that this makes me a [http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiReductionists "wiki reductionist."]

Supporters of this rule include LarrySanger JerryMuelver

''See DeletePatentNonsenseDebate''
----
'''Give the author a chance:'''  I propose that we add comments at the bottom of a page instead of within the text, when we disagree with an author but to delete or re-write portions of his material would substnatially alter its meaning.  Then the author may make changes in his own style, and/or discussion of the material can be moved to a _____Talk page.  When one encounters obvious vandalism of another's work, he should feel free to Delete PatentNonsense.

Supporters of this rule include AyeSpy

''See GiveTheAuthorAChanceDebate''
³3minor³30³3newauthor³31³3summary³3*³2tscreate³2981308293³2keepts³2982451429³2id³21001³2host³2cobrand.bomis.com³2revision³212