Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Vote

Voting has closed on this proposal.

Voting
This is to take this policy and make it official, rather than semi-official. Voting ends March 1, 2005 at 23:59 UTC. Please vote below. One vote per user is allowed; anonymous votes will be ignored. Comments regarding votes can be left below or on the vote Talk page. Discussion of the policy in general should be left on the parent article's Talk page.

For

 * 1)  AllyUnion (talk) 08:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Thryduulf 11:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) utcursch 11:59, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Tsuyoshikentsu 06:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) CheeseDreams 19:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 6) Beta m (talk) 18:15, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * 7) Hyacinth 03:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) 80.255 18:37, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Against

 * 1) Charles Stewart 14:14, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Maurreen 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Carnildo 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Philip Baird Shearer 20:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) See comments.
 * 6) Jmabel | Talk 01:00, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC) See comments.
 * 7) --Rje 03:39, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) RickK 05:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 9) Cyrius|&#9998; 06:10, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 11:26, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)  See comments.
 * 11) Mgm|(talk) 12:16, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Jwrosenzweig 21:52, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) (I'm opposed to even voting on making this "policy" -- doesn't make sense.  I don't see that this vote does anything but make a great piece of advice into an unnecessarily legalistic set of handcuffs.)
 * 13) This a principle, but not appropriate as a policy. -- Netoholic @ 02:07, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * 14) What they said.   &mdash; mark &#9998; 02:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 15) foobaz&middot;&#10000; 02:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 16) Chris 73 Talk 11:12, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC) Way to fuzzy, and not needed.
 * 17) r3m0t 17:10, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) although I follow this myself and want other people to.
 * 18) llywrch 22:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 19) Should remain a guideline. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 20) Theo  (Talk) 02:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Unenforcable.
 * 21) Chamaeleon 13:59, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 22) SlimVirgin 13:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 23) ral315 22:53, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * 24) --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 25) If you need a policy to tell you to assume good faith, you shouldn't be part of a wiki. Dr Zen 06:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 26) Wincoote 03:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) This is a proposal to make unconditional naivety mandatory. I think that is absurd. People should be allowed to judge for themselves. It is obvious that there is a good deal of bad faith on Wikipedia and telling people to stick their heads in the sand won't change that. Wincoote 03:05, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1)  AllyUnion (talk) 23:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments

 * Seems like a good idea, however some editors (over a period of time) have demonstrated that they are not editing in good faith. An ammendment that clarifies this would be a good idea, IMO. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm echoing Ta bu shi da yu's criticism, except I am rather pessimistic about the abusability of this rather Panglossian rule. For an example, if a series of POV edits appear on David Irving, eulogising his skills as a historian and putting down his court defeats as part of the global left-wing conspiracy, I am not going to assume good faith, and I will not appreciate well-meant Wikipedia rules directing me to do so, particularly if, say, the edits are from an IP address listed on various anti-fascist blacklists.  Be civil might be the name of a constructive policy, but policies telling me how to think are not constructive.  Charles Stewart 14:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with TBSDY and Charles. Further: How could such a policy be enforced? How can anyone assume to know what is someone else is thinking? And why no discussion before this poll? Maurreen 20:25, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * What is enforcable about this policy? --Carnildo 20:37, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've always thought this Wikipedia text should emphasize that one does always begin with the assumption of good faith. Then one soon learns through experience. I cringe every time I see this language brandished (and even linked! how self-righteous is that!) in heated discussion, used as a stick, often by the least collegial editors (I'm only selectively collegial myself, I know) to beat their current opponents who identified specific acts of furtiveness or manipulation. In another aspect, I have found that if I find an anon. edit has been reverted and look at the page history, I often find a history of vandalism. The corollary of "Assume Good Faith" is always "...but Expect more of the Same." --Wetman 21:56, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'd be served by making this an official policy. I think most editors already assume good faith until they have reason to do otherwise, and if they don't, how are we to tell? Then, too, it's sometimes appropriate not to assume good faith, if you have ample reason to believe otherwise. Making this an official policy would just give those who are acting in bad faith another screen for their behavior; as the MeatBallWiki page from which this is derived says:
 * Note that it is bordering on offensive to repeatedly shrill "You must AssumeGoodFaith, stop asking me questions!" whenever challenged - that is, to hide behind this social convention. In fact, we will assume you are not acting in good faith instead. It's better to obviously act in good faith than demand people read that into your actions.
 * &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * While I generally assume good faith, and think people should do so, there are people to whom I no longer grant this boon. There comes a point where it becomes clear that someone is acting in bad faith, beyond which I see no reason to continue to assume good faith. At some point that becomes just a license to troll. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with much which has already been said. I think this policy is unenforcable, and besides I think that most people do assume good faith for the most part anyway, apart from for a few persistant trolls/vandals etc. This kind of thing has to be taken on a case by case basis. Rje 03:44, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand how this can be a policy. So, what do we do if somebody doesn't follow it?  Ban them, because they assume somebody is behaving badly?  This is thought police stuff.  RickK 05:52, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * You have to assume good faith simply because this Wikipedia would be nonexistant without it. All right, that's a bit of an overstatement of fact, but if you want a NPOV article, you have to have edits by many biased people, which means allowing biased people to make edits, and then editing that.  There are two sides to every story, and within those two sides a combination of points of each are true.  So if a biased person makes an edit, another removes the untrue points and adds several of his own, and the first biased person removes the second's untrue points, you end up eith an unbiased, true article.Tsuyoshikentsu 06:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I had held off on voting against this for a while. It left me feeling vaguely unsettled, and I just realized why. Making "assume good faith" official policy is contradictory. By saying "YOU MUST ASSUME GOOD FAITH", we fail to assume good faith. "Assume good faith" is a guideline to behavior, not a rule that can be dictated and enforced. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In my reading through the Talk pages on the Wikipedia (for both articles and User pages), and looking through current and archived disputes (RfC, RfM, and RfAr), it is obvious that there are too many problems on the Wikipedia that start, or escalate, because one side or both sides started out by not assuming good faith. On the other hand, this does sound like an attempt to legislate thought rather than behavior. I think that it may be best for now to leave this as semi-policy that can still be cited by the Arbitration Committee in those cases where the behavior of an editor has been in flagrant violations of the policy. Blank Verse   &empty;   11:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * You know what "they" say about assuming, right? Besides, I regularly run into editors who are trying to advertise things or inject material they should know to be incorrect, not just POV.  Therefore, I find this concept we're voting on to be Pollyanna-ish. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 11:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Policies should be enforceble and this one isn't unless it's clearly defined, when bad faith is evident. Mgm|(talk) 12:18, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jmabel above. Making this a policy will create far more problems than it would solve. (This proposal reminds of a passage from the Tao Te Ching, to the effect that if we must make "assume good faith" a policy, then we no longer have it.) -- llywrch 22:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been recently having problems with a turd who quotes "assume good faith" whenever I point out the bad-faith actions he engages in. If this policy remains, it should make clearer that although initially assuming good faith is nice, continuing to believe in good faith against all evidence is foolish. Chamaeleon 14:02, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Motion to make this a guideline

 * I motion to make this a guideline, rather than policy. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:29, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Since that's what it already was... I guess I support that. Wikipedia is getting too legalistic. Isomorphic 16:40, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

 * "Assume good faith, but don't be a sucker." -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:07, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith in others, if you want them to assume good faith in yourself." Blank Verse   &empty;   11:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Assume an axe to grind." This would seem a lot more realistic. :) &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 14:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Don't assume bad faith. Wait for it to announce its presence." - Nunh-huh 02:25, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Assume good faith, but do not ignore bad faith when it announces itself." -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Voting is evil
Whoever started this vote, consider yourself flogged with a wet noodle. There's no reason to vote on this. It isn't a procedural matter, like how VfD should run, or when people should be blocked. It's not enforceable and not intended to be. There isn't really a difference between "official policy" and "semi-policy" anyway; on Wikipedia, "policy" is just a word meaning "what we do". Formalizing for its own sake just misses the point.

Speaking of missing the point, have some of you forgotten that this is a wiki? If the page is unclear or has problems, fix it. I can't believe Wetmen cringes every time he sees the page, and hasn't done anything about it. The principle is important, but the words on the page aren't sacred; I wrote much of it myself a few months ago. Isomorphic 19:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a difference between policy and a guideline. I saw it was marked as semi-official, rather than official. -- AllyUnion (talk) 22:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I never liked the semi-policy category much, since it created a distinction where there had been none before. When I showed up, pretty much everything was just a guideline.  The idea that things have to be "official policy" is pretty new, and I'm not a fan. Isomorphic 16:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)