Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Interwiki

Dear administrator, please add the following interwiki:

[[ia:Wikipedia:Presume bon fide]]

Thank you in advance, Julian Mendez 23:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm? This page doesn't seem to be protected. Luna Santin 02:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith / Assume good faith

The "Assume Good Faith" [capitalised] entry refers the visitor to the "Good faith" entry but not to here. At "Good faith" the decision had been taken to remove the link to here as "confusing". I've added an External Link there with an explanation but I think it would be helpful if someone with experience of disambiguation provided a link to here from "Assume Good Faith" --Opbeith 11:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the encyclopedia is kept strictly separate from Wikipedia-space pages. —Centrx→talk • 06:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm new, and I don't get this...

Why was The Exception removed from this policy; I'm new here on Wikipedia, and I don't get this mentality. Why is the mental sanity of our long-time contributors not worth more than getting a few more POV pushers or otherwise trouble-makers on the project? Are there too little edits being made on Wikipedia servers, are the hardware costs of the wikimedia foundation so low that we need more trouble-makers on board? What is the reason for this tolerance of bad behavior? --Merzul 22:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that the exception was justified. I don't agree with Merzul's arguments, as I've seen too much of "long-time contributors" who are also "POV pushers", and I don't see how constant accusations of bad faith could decrease the amount of trouble-makers and the hardware costs. However, without such an exception, even the use of the word "vandal" (the very definition of which includes malice) would have to be prohibited - people may vandalise (perform bad actions), but that doesn't allow us to call them vandals (thus assuming bad faith). I'm sorry, but I think this is absurd hair-splitting. An impracticable rule is worse than no rule at all. --Anonymous44 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone blanks enough pages on a topic there is a point where that action is not coming from an intention to do good. Exceptions are obvious, but in a format where the long-in-the-tooth rely on only the text the exception should be stated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Does accusing of violation of AGF really amount to a violation of AGF?

WP:AAGF used to be an essay (officially, it still is), and for good reasons, IMO. This edit, which apparently passed without substantial discussion, suddenly turned it into part of the policy/guideline itself. I think this is wrong, not because I am in favour of citing AGF groundlessly (personally, I never envoke it in discussions), but simply because it does not make sense logically - and this does not inspire any respect for WP policies/guidelines. The reason is simple: failing to assume good faith in someone else is not the same as acting in bad faith oneself - thus, accusing someone of violating AGF is not the same as accusing him of bad faith - thus, accusing someone of violating AGF does not violate AGF. Accusing wrongfully of AGF violation may be a very wrong thing to do, but AGF is not the policy to deal with it. The fallacy of the AAGF essay is, IMO, simply that someone equated "not assuming good faith" with "making any sort of accusations", and figured that envoking AGF is an accusation, too. Of course, the underlying identification of any accusation with an AGF violation here is wrong. Once again, my major concern is not the actual application of the rule; it is the fact that people reading WP policies and guidelines expect to read something that has been well thought over, and will have less respect for them if they find something illogical or impracticable there. --Anonymous44 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

See also "Assume the Assumption of Good Faith". I suppose some kind of infinite regress would be possible, and if links like WP:AAAGF and WP:AAAAGF turn from red to blue, we'll know it's happening. My own contribution is "Assume the Presence of a Belly Button", which I hope never to see anyone accused of "violating". (How exactly does one "violate" an essay, anyway? Errrm, does it involve bondage?) -- Ben 21:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So far, nobody has objected to my arguments above, so I'm removing the sentence in question:

"Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is another form of failing to assume good faith."

If someone insists on re-including it, it ought to be re-worded to something like "Accusing the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith, without showing reasonable supporting evidence, is strongly discouraged." This is indisputable, and it also makes sense logically, unlike the original version. --Anonymous44 15:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Ben is saying that the current version is in accordance with AAGF, and your deletion is not. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ben wrote this before my deletion. AAGF is merely an essay, and AGF does not need to be in accordance with it. --Anonymous44 16:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please address the *substance* of my argument above. I took the trouble to write it, so I expected people to take the trouble to read it and respond to it before reverting.--Anonymous44 16:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've got two concepts mixed up here. This guideline concerns itself with assuming another party's intentions are evil. What you seem to be talking about is doing evil, which this guideline is not concerned with. If that's not what you're talking about, please strive to make your argument less convoluted. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to clarify it.

The disputed sentence says the following: if you say (without sufficient reasons): "User X violates AGF", then you are violating AGF.

However, this is another way of saying that if you assume that user X assumes bad faith, then you are assuming bad faith.

And this is another way of saying that assuming bad faith (as user X supposedly does) is a form of acting in bad faith.

But that's not true, is it? User X may have perfectly good intentions, and yet make the mistake of being too suspicious towards others. I notice someone pointed out more or less the same before, without realising that he is already contradicting the new text of the policy. [1]

Here is a table of sorts, starting from the statement in the present text and reaching the implication that I'm sure no one of us would agree with:

1. assuming non-assumption of good faith = violating "assume good faith"

2. assuming non-assumption of good faith = assuming bad faith

3. non-assumption of good faith = bad faith

--Anonymous44 17:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can see the paradox. I think that since this isn't a policy any more, it may be okay to drop that sentence. You've got to appreciate, though, that the phrase was added at a time when every vandal and edit warrer would come to ANI and complain that bad faith had been assumed against them. So that phrase was presumably added at that time - in good faith - in order to curb such a waste of everybody's resources. Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very glad it's all cleared up, I really hate conflicts. :) Sure I understand why people felt that something like that was necessary; and indeed I think the sentence can be preserved in a form that achieves the same effect without being paradoxical, something like "Editors should avoid accusing the other side in a conflict of assuming bad faith without showing reasonable supporting evidence." I guess that's the edit I should have made in the first place, but I couldn't think of a good wording. --Anonymous44 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Act in Good Faith

Wikipedia:Act in good faith is a new article that is meant to be a companion to WP:AGF. That is, here would go a list of things *you* the individual should do that *show* your good faith in your own edits. Versus AGF being what you should assume the other person is doing in *their* edits. Obviously I need help developing this proposal, it's just the first blurb. In reading over AGF it looks like a lot of content here, can be forked over there. Any takers? Wjhonson 07:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this even needed? I can't say I approve of forking this. It sounds like WP:CREEP. pschemp | talk 16:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think there are now three or four essays that relate to AGF (including my own). Should we put all of them on a single page? Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"In all cases where a Wikipedian claims credentials, they should be assumed to be only claims until they have been verified by reliable third-party sources."

I added it. C.m.jones 16:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A procedure of "verifying credentials" is not part of normal wikipedian practice, and I think it has better stay that way. Credentials are really peripheral to the whole project; it works on the basis of wiki policies and (in particular) on citing sources, not on expertise. The fact that one is or claims to be an expert should have no consequences for the way one's edits and arguments are treated. So I don't like this addition, mainly because it seems to suggest that credentials do have a "legal" significance, if they are true. --Anonymous44 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a nice addition to Wikipedia:Assume Bad Faith, but not here. Derex 22:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Should we display the Assume Good Faith userbox on this talk page? Could someone find it for me? -PatPeter 16:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Not needed obviously, this page is as calm as a lake in the morning. Readers and authors have read the article, as it seems. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 13:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the last paragraph

I was in a discussion after a failed RM. The proponent of the move listed a table that classified the voters by their affilations. There was some heated discussion, and I decided to join in, and voiced discomfort about his tone and his classification of the voters. I did that because I believed he was not acting in good faith. It resulted in some awful alternation between me and him. So, what should I have done in that discussion? Is it really appropriate to complain if the other party is likely to act in the contrary or would it just cause more incivility?--Kylohk 21:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspension of judgment

I included Suspension of judgment under See also, as I believe that this is a fundamental auxiliary concept necessary for the AGF. —Alde Baer 09:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In WP:KEYSPAM someone raised the legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat ("ignorance of the law does not excuse") as a way to excuse admins and editors who failed to assume good faith during the AACS encryption key controversy. I think we should include text that specifically says that assume good faith is in contravention to "ignorance of the law does not excuse". I am also raising this in WP:BITE.--Cerejota 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the bulk of my posting over at WP:BITE:

Others (and I) believe this to violate both WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

However, since "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is indeed a legal principle highly esteemed in the western world, from which the bulk of the english wikipedia editors come, it is only natural that people would feel this principle applies.

So I think an explicit guideline with regards of then non-applicability this principle is needed in both WP:AGF and WP:BITE.

--Cerejota 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Since there has been no comment, and this has existed in WP:BITE for a while I am inserting.--Cerejota 08:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about last sentence

Emphasis mine.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.

Hi, can someone tell me what the last sentence means, please? That you shouldn't accuse other people of assuming bad faith when there's not enough evidence? --Kjoonlee 16:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem

IMO, it is this particular policy that is the most misguided on WP. WP:AGF is simply Jimbo's Randian experiment, contrary to more sane notions of human nature. Except in non-controversial areas (e.g., math), the evidence indicates that most people contribute to WP out of self-interest to push a personal agenda. Of course, when and if that agenda is the common good, that's fine, but experience at WP betrays this as a broad, accurate assumption. And they may view their personal, non-common-good agenda as helping. In fact, of course they do! But is it really? Assume nothing. Act according to evidence--WP:ANAAE. This project will never be a widely accepted encyclopedia without striking WP:AGF and replacing it with such a fundamental, realistic assumption. ---C.m.jones 09:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Assume good faith" does have a caveat for extreme cases. As to it being Jimbo's Randian experiment, I beg to differ: it is in fact the least Randian of the policies in wikipedia.

Since we do not know each other in real life, and have little time to build trust among ourselves, assuming good faith as an operative principle seems like the only logical way to keep the house form crumbling. In fact, there seems to be a direct relationship between article quality, and the assumption of good faith on the part of editors in that article. The worse quality articles in wikipedia always have talk pages full of failure to assume good faith.--Cerejota 08:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What do I do with a user who is having a problem with the AGF rule

I hope I am taking this as a correct procedure to report a user, as on how do I resolve this argument between users as the user:293.xx.xxx.xx has accused me and another user of a "vandalism" edit over the bippu page, as for the fact I have never either heard of the term before or know of the existence of the article. So when I first came to this page, that edit at the time said vip instead of Bippu, therefore, taking this as a common abbreviation any anybody would, I changed it to an all upper-case word, when this user came to his page, he gave me and the other user (User:Night Garage) an vandalism tag, also for general editing.

for the fact I have never heard this word before, on google there is 10,100 hits for the word bippu[2] compared to 232,000 for VIP Style [3]

This user has this attitude as he doesn't want anybody to edit "his" page (which he did not create) which is against the spirit of Wikipedia

As from my personal experience, this user is one who cannot keep to the AGF rule with me and another user (User:Night Garage) who has been given a vandalism tag, purely for giving an explanation on how it is pronounced in Japanese, as he is accused for fan-crufting. I am not sure about taking this argument further as I know this argument has became more heated as ever. So what shall I do as I don't like myself to be the person to back down after being blamed for a "vandalism" edit I have not done for the fact I was unwittingly involved.

You can see the commentary between me and him, starting with the one he sent me, as of when he replied back, this is started to stray from the AGF rule. Willirennen 12:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A case study - Food for thought

I propose to insert a link to A case study, e.g. in the "Articles" section. It is provided only as "food for thought". I am not assuming that people will share my opinion, but I believe that this case is quite interesting, in this context. Do you agree? Paolo.dL 15:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody disagrees, I inserted the link. But there was no section in "See also" suitable for "case studies". Thus, I placed the link within the text, at the end of the paragraph referring to the principle of "ignorantia legis non excusat", because the case study is just about misbehaviour due to ignorantia legis. Paolo.dL 10:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a little more than a week is not enough time to establish consensus, since no-one has replied.

I do have one comment: your link is to a Userspace essay, and while linking to those is not unknown, it is generally frowned upon outside of talk pages. If you fill your essay nets betetr treatmeant, you should try to read WP:POLICIES, in particular the part on essays. Be warned however, if that once out of Userspace, it will be come much more scrutinized by the community and hence subjected to restless editing, or maybe not! Just be be bold!!!--Cerejota 23:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the info. Paolo.dL 07:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

remove Assume the assumption of good faith

Why have this nonsense essay in the mix. It suggests not linking to this page after someone demonstrably fails to assume good faith, and is counter productive. The common sense intention is so basic that if someone lacks it, there is little hope of helping them at all. Pdbailey 01:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete documented video interview?

I'm sorry but this is very relevant to the article.

I vote that this interview should be added to the Blair Wilson article on the Wikipedia.

Refactor of intro

I've edited the introduction somewhat, to try and cover AGF more carefully. The original article was a 6 paragraph intro (only) which included 2 paragraphs each of introduction, WP:BITE, and AGF in general. I've edited this as follows:

Moved the two general paragraphs into a section "About good faith", to allow other editors to expand the topic in future.
Moved the two paragraphs on WP:BITE to a section specifically on "good faith and newcomers".
Refactored the remaining two paragraphs of the introduction as follows:
In the 1st paragraph, replaced "we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help..." by "we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help...", which seems more accurate.
In the 2nd paragraph, took the sentence about talk pages and disagreement and made this into a paragraph by including this addition: "Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus if possible."
Finally, used the bare statement "Good faith is obviously not bad faith", and expanded this with clarification of what bad faith editing means, and what is expected if AGF is in doubt. The extra sentence reads: "Even if good faith is in doubt, assume good faith where you can, be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors."

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Update:

Clarified the sentence about "accusations of bad faith themselves being bad faith unless reasonable evidence..." etc. This sentence was criticized above on this page as being unclear. I've reworded it, and put it in its own subsection "Accusing others of bad faith".
I've split the main section on good faith into two; one covering good faith, the other describing how to deal with (suspected) bad faith. if someone wants to re-merge these, I dont have a strong view on it but this seemed sensible.
I've put the section on newcomers above the section on bad faith, rather than below it. Again, no strong view, if anyone feels differently, go for it.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Reverting good faith edits"

I see this comment a lot... does it mean that the edit being reverted is, or is not, in good faith? --JWB 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it means that the edit reverted was an edit made in good faith, or was assumed to be made in good faith. –sebi 11:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You see it probably because Twinkle has this function. I personally don't think that it's useful to cite in an edit summary, well, maybe for when a newbie makes a genuine edit and you don't want to offend them by blatantly reverting, but that's it. Mel sa ran 11:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But you shouldn't forget to expain why the edit was reverted. Otherwise, it looks like: "hey, you are a nice guy, I know, but your edit is so stupid that I reverted it and don't even bother explaining you why" :-). Paolo.dL 13:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you should explain every revert of a good-faith edit :-) Mel sa ran 13:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Application of this policy

I don't like how this policy is applied. It makes no sense that an edit like [[4]](Warning, foul language) gets tolerated with a warning. In my opinion, that deserves an IMMEDIATE ban, not 'Congratulations, your edit worked!' on their talk page, then a dozen more warnings before anything is done. I'm not saying that this policy is without merit, but it does not discourage vandalism at all. Vandalism is a major problem. I shouldn't be reading about Vicia_faba then stumble upon a line of very foul language that I would not want children seeing. There just isn't enough policing action to let vandals run rampant and trust that we'll have enough contributors with genuine good faith to clean it up- promptly. This policy, and its application, is detrimental to the quality of Wikipedia. Phasmatisnox 10:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

accused by mischarge

I found the Epthorn has accused me of a false charge to other user. In recent, I added two sentences underpinned by the reliable references written by journalists and issued by major massmedia in Korea. However, Epthorn misconcluded my intention for the revision solely supported with his imagination. Following the paragraph Epthorn left on other's user talk box;

Jpbarrass, Hey, I wanted to warn you that a user called "Patriotmissile" may intend to vandalize a page you have contributed to, Sungkyunkwan_University. I have had about all I can take of this user. Since I have only so many things I can do at once (and don't want to follow this particular person all over Wikipedia) maybe you should keep an eye on it. Thanks, Epthorn 15:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I revised the content in the 'Sungkyunkwan university' thread, and you can check whether my revisions are supported by reliable references and my intention is nothing to do with the charge claimed by the Epthorn. I kind of feel upset by this accusation with a false charge.Patriotmissile 15:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Guideline needs revision

The AGF guideline is being both abused and misunderstood by many users on Wikipedia. For example, in some cases, even if a user has been found guilty of misconduct, if a person claims that convicted user is acting in bad faith then sometimes that person is accused of not assuming good faith. And this is just the start. Is this how AGF was meant to be used? Was this ever anticipated? - Cyborg Ninja 08:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Guilty"? "Misconduct"? "Convicted"? What is this, court? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)