User:Friday/Criticism

(I assume this has already been said in some essays or guidelines somewhere. But I'm not sure where, and for now, I feel like it needs to be said.)

I've been rather astonished lately to see so many people misinterpreting "assume good faith" as though it means "we must always agree with each other." Nothing could be further from the truth. There's plenty of room for good editors to disagree with each other, all in good faith. In other words, criticism is allowed. Because of Wikipedia's nature as a collaborative project, criticism is necessary. Criticism of articles helps us improve them, and criticism of editors helps us become better at what we do.

Too frequently, people cry "assume good faith" or "no personal attacks", without apparently comprehending what these words mean. Being civil is about keeping our discussion focused on useful things, rather than degenerating into schoolyard name-calling. We can disagree strongly, and even use strong words, while keeping the discussion on topic. When evaluating an admin candidate for example, if you feel they have poor judgement, it's OK to say so. It's not a personal attack. When a user is disruptive and a block is being discussed, it's not a personal attack to come right out and say they've been disruptive. You should have evidence, of course, but criticism is allowed.

Admins in particular will tend to attract more criticism, and should be extra gracious in receiving it. If someone has a disagreement with your actions as an editor or an admin, you should listen to them. You might not agree that their criticism is valid (this happens all the time, and this is allowed too) but you'll never know if you don't first take the time to actually listen to it.

Examples

Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Filll/Abuse_of_Civil_Hall_of_Fame shows a case of several editors who appear to believe that criticism is automatically bad