I used to keep this on my main page, but in an effort to simplify things, I've moved it to a side page.
My Edit Philosophy edit
1. Verifiable sources: everything must be sourced. I will be merciless in questioning sources and requesting references, and removing clearly wrong information. However, if something is said that seems correct and could easily be sourced, I'll let it stay there until sources are found, unless it sticks out like a sore thumb (e.g. a recently added unsourced claim to an otherwise good article). Often, leaving unsourced information on a start page gives editors an organizational framework which would be lost if all unsourced claims were removed from said article. However, the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; if someone makes a good argument for removal, I think Wikipedia policy is with that user.
- Exclusionism (Not to be construed as exclusion of specific editors) - Though I might lean toward deletion or inclusion at times, my real interest is building an encyclopedia that is based on reliable independent sources; an encyclopedia that is precise and looks professional. Sometimes this involves deleting articles or removing WP:FANCRUFT, other times this means fighting to keep an article, and of course writing well-sourced content. In the end, a lot of times what helps the encyclopedia the most is keeping junk content off.
2. Consensus: in WP decisions, consensus rules. This is a key value of Wikipedia's philosophy. My point of view is just that: mine. Policies do not speak for themselves. They only say anything when they are interpreted. People don't have the right to be dogmatic: all rules and policies should be enforced through consensus. It should also be noted that most policies are a codified representation of the general consensus of this project; there is no cabal, the whole community created these policies.
- Voting is evil - Wikipedia isn't a democracy, people should stop being lazy and actually sit down and do the hard work of coming up with a real consensus. Putting a support or oppose vote doesn't mean anything; only a well-reasoned argument will advance your position. In other words, despite appearances: we don't vote, we don't tally.
- Ignore all rules is not a catch-all; referring to it whenever a policy goes against what you want to do is not a valid method for argument, and really isn't at all persuasive. What many people fail to realize is that policy is the codified consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole, and as such overrides any smaller consensus of editors.
As User:7 said: "IAR shouldn't be an easy or frequent solution for anyone to do whatever they please. There has to be a rational basis for the decision, and the person IAR-ing should be highly confident that a majority of prudent people faced with the same situation would make the same decision."
Rather than citing IAR or criticizing the policy, look for ways that you can reach a compromise that doesn't violate existing policy. In the few cases where WP:IAR is used to override an existing policy or guideline, it is usually a fairly obvious decision, and not contentious.
- Ignore all rules is not a catch-all; referring to it whenever a policy goes against what you want to do is not a valid method for argument, and really isn't at all persuasive. What many people fail to realize is that policy is the codified consensus of the Wikipedia community as a whole, and as such overrides any smaller consensus of editors.
3. Time: Not everyone has it. First, I refuse to live on Wikipedia. I'm trying to write for a living, so as soon as WP becomes work and not a hobby, I'm done. No one should expect instantaneous responses. A week is a reasonable time-frame if planning major changes to an article. Second, everyone values his or her own time. Don't tell other people to make edits, if you aren't willing to do it yourself. Don't demand more of others than you demand of yourself.
4. Civility: No matter what transpires, keep in mind WP:Good Faith and don't presume bias or malicious intent. Don't talk down to people; just because someone spends more or less time on Wikipedia, or has more or less experience, doesn't give you the right to be arrogant. If you need to explain something, try to explain the concept without throwing a bunch of links in someone's face. Use links as references, not as explanations. Two people can read the same policy or guideline and take completely different ideas from it. Explanation through clear reasoning is the key to better understanding.
5. Communication: Open and clear communication equals progress, sloppy or no communication equals conflict. I will never do anything without first explaining in an edit summary, and discussion if necessary. Everyone should be prepared to explain the reasoning behind their edits.
6. "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing." - While edits to Wikipedia space and userspace are necessary, I want to keep my focus on mainspace edits and discussions directly related to that content.