Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Don't assume

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  Keep I'm not really seeing any policy based reasons for deleting this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't assume


This essay is a self-contradictory content fork of both WP:NPA and WP:AGF: The essay first creates the illusion that to assume good faith is an act of "assuming". (It isn't.) Then proceeds to forbid assuming and instead instructs: "give the benefit of the doubt", which is in reality, another way of saying "assume good faith". Finally, it proceeds to ridicule the act of assuming (and by extension assuming good faith) via uncivil terms such as "ass" and "fuck". The net result is that the essay has backfired: no only the essay has failed to convince people to "give the benefit of doubt", it has antagonized them with the concept (as evident from the additions to the original text).

Both WP:AGF and WP:NPA agree (and recommend) giving the benefit of the doubt and commenting on contents instead of contributors. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are no personal attacks involved, and the point of the essay was to present AGF from another point of view. AGF really just comes down to "don't assume bad faith". 'Don't assume' is simply a neutral-point-of-view version. It's the same spirit of AGF, but with wording that reaches the chilly hearts of our coldest editors.


 * At least, that was the version when I originally made it, but I actually like the additions since then, as it goes beyond editor behavior. It adds the warning that you shouldn't assume anything you can't verify.


 * It's the same idea as other supplemental essays that simply place our existing behavior guidelines in certain light: Assume Ignorance, Assume no clue, On assuming good faith, and those are just the ones directly related to AGF.


 * If asses and fucks are the issue here, then we can simply remove those. They weren't originally a part of the essay, anyways. I guess the nom just assumed they were. -- Ned Scott 01:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. Your original version is a remarkable one line that basically reads: If you don't feel like assuming good faith about another user's actions, you don't have to. You can still assume good faith by simply not assuming, one way or another. Self-contradictory at best. However, it seem it did have the antagonizing effect that I mentioned and that's why it is dangerous. Your good-faith attempt to persuade people to give the benefit of doubt has backfired into what we see today: A vessel to antagonize. It is this net result that has made me nominate this essay for deletion.


 * As for the incivility, yes, I and WP:CIVIL both have problem with that, and no, I cannot remove it without being engaged in edit war. They are witty. Deleting witty comments in an essay without administrative powers is impossible. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to play the devil's advocate: Even if this essay did contradict AGF, that in itself is not grounds for deletion. There are essays where users opine about the pros and cons of various guidelines, including WP:BOLD, WP:IAR, and others, and exist because of their valuable perspective on such advice.


 * My feelings are still that this does not contradict AGF, but rather supports it. One does not have to strictly assume good faith in order to follow the spirit of WP:Assume good faith. As strange as that sounds, it couldn't be more true. AGF is just about benefit of the doubt and not assuming bad intentions. You are the first person I've seen claim that this essay can even be seen in such a negative light. Other people who've edited the page seem to agree that it does not necessarily go against AGF to "not assume".


 * When I saw the deletion notice, I thought maybe it was because it was so short and possibly not used much. I was surprised to see that it had further life in edits, and has been referenced several times. I see no evidence that the goal of this essay has backfired at all. The net result I see is positive and helpful to the community. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. No, it does not sound strange to me. In fact I believe it. So basically, our disagreement boils down to your last sentence and the first sentence of your second paragraph. I have already shown the area of self-contradiction, so there is nothing left to discuss there. But if you wish to see "evidence", I advise you to inspect the links to this article more closely. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have, see below. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I was readying a list of my own to put here as well, but I see you have listed one quote from Jimbo Wales. So, I might as well save my breath; people will fill this page with "keep" only because Jimbo Wales was remotely attached. (I've seen this before.) At best it would be userified, per policy. Well, I guess it is not the world's end. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no quote from Jimbo Wales. It is from his talk page, where people will debate things without interacting with Jimbo at all. It's pretty well known that his talk page has long since turned into a bizarro public debate forum, and actually has very little to do with Jimbo Wales himself. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears you have never heard of sarcasm or sarcastic speech. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Sarcasm isn't very clear in text messages. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. -- Ned Scott 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello again. You know, when I was reading the essay, I kept thinking, the concept of "don't assume" is to good a concept to fall victim to opposition with a policy. If I were you, I'd remove all mentions "assume good faith" from the essay, promoting "don't assume" as a general concept that is intrinsically good. You don't even have to remove the mention of "give the benefit of doubt" because as you said above "My feelings are still that this does not contradict AGF, but rather supports it". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change anything, and it's silly to pretend that it does. The point of the essay was to present AGF in another light, to appeal to those who would normally just ignore AGF. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It does change something: It is called a compromise. In Wikipedia, two people who disagree us a compromise to resolve their dispute. But your messages are growing increasingly hostile. So, that concludes our discussion here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:45, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologies if I came off as hostile, but I just don't understand how this would change your main objection of this being used negatively. The only times I've seen this used in a slightly negative light was not in respects to WP:AGF, but rather in regards to "telling people off" when they made any assumptions (which, indeed, is not a positive use of this essay).


 * I do not oppose compromise. It's pretty clear that this is more than just "my" essay at this point, and it has a life of it's own, so your input as a member of the wikipedia community is just as valid as anyone else's if you think that the content of this essay should be changed.


 * How would you feel about something that said "If you find yourself unable to assume good faith, then at least don't assume bad faith"? That maintains the intentions of the essay, and makes it clearer that the point is not to oppose WP:AGF. -- Ned Scott 11:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It says respond on face value.  Don't look for underlying or hidden agenda.  Don't psychoanalyze the poster and respond to your own results.  This is a very good way to keep out of trouble.  When you do get in trouble, your response is easy to defend.  This encourages plain speaking, which I think it good to encourage.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. There is no denying that, yes. But that's neither reason for keeping or deleting. The nomination says the essay is dangerous – not deliberately, but ultimately. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay is not dangerous. Asserting imagined dangers is dangerous.  Deleting committed editors opinions concerning the project is destructive.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * So much hatred that I see there is dangerous. Such strong exhibition of both hate and a will to maintain a poker face is perhaps a must for a society of contract killers but not Wikipedia. (And when I say "dangerous" I do not mean it has heart attack risk or can compromise national security.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. I read it again.  Sorry, I don't feel the hatred.  Again, I read it saying along the lines: Don't get emotionally involved.  Don't look for feelings, and don't respond with feelings.  I don't necessarily agree, I think AGF is probably better, but I think this essay is reasonable, more reasonable than censoring it.  By "dangerous", I assume you mean encouraging of incival behaviours.   Am I right in guessing that DGAF makes you uncomfortable?  I don't like it either, I think we should have feelings, such as respect, for each other, but I recognise that others adopt these methods/philosophies while editing.  I consider it a defence mechanism.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Discussion I've been going through the links to this essay to see how people have been using it. So far, I have not found anything outright negative. There are a few references that don't entirely make sense, since they seem to just literally be saying "don't assume" and wanting something to link to, but even that by itself didn't strike me as negative.


 * Here are some examples that not only show that people feel that the essay has a positive message, but that it is also in the same spirit of AGF:


 * User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 97:
 * I feel an unassuming approach may be relevant here. Not making assumptions about other editors helps foster patience, imo. Acknowledging that one doesn't know the full story may make it easier to keep an open mind (whereas simply fighting to keep one's patience may mean losing it). MistyMorn (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * User talk:Closeapple:
 * Hello. With this warning, I would advice you that you do not have to assume, like this essay instructs. It also warns about my prejudice towards spelling. Thank you.--Disliker of humanities 12:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:Sxeptomaniac/Archive 1:
 * I ran across a very short essay recently that I believe summarizes the heart of assuming good faith rather well. You certainly would have made a better impression the first time we interacted on a talk page if you had taken that tactic.  However, you didn't, so I've found myself speaking up when I notice that same pattern of behavior affecting others.  When it stops, I'll move on. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive743:
 * *Oppose - as per Boing! said Zebedee's reasoning. Kww, that action was unacceptable. Didn't you know that there is something known as a talk page of a user to discuss their edits and what they can use to correct it in the future? Blocking him is just gonna him a hard time and might make him leave the project. As for a summary being a lie, meh, If I was you, i'd assume some good faith and if it were a long-term pattern, I would have proceeded with warnings. And Kww don't assume he was doing the wrong things. Abhijay  What did I do this time? 14:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * -- Ned Scott 07:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy essays which contradict some widespread consensus - such as the guideline WP:AGF - belong in the user namespace . Hut 8.5 11:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The essay's message is that one can assume good faith by not assuming anything. There's no contradiction here. The assertion that this is anti-AGF is absurd. I've brought up multiple examples that back up this claim, and yet no one has shown any example of contradiction. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF explicitly tells you to assume good faith, this essay explicitly tells you not to (or, at least, that not assuming good faith is acceptable). There is clearly a contradiction there. This essay is making a more subtle argument that the central message of AGF is to give other editors the benefit of the doubt, and that it is possible to do this without assuming good faith. That doesn't change the fact that it's telling you not to assume good faith. Hut 8.5 14:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a reason why AFG is a guideline and not some kind of hard-line rule. The point of a guideline is to guide users. AGF is just using "the assumption of good faith" as their primary method of giving users the benefit of the doubt. It is not, and has never been, a required rule of Wikipedia that you must assume good faith.


 * "Don't assume" does not say to "not assume good faith", but that if someone feels they cannot assume good faith, that they can still follow the same principals as WP:AGF. The only direct advocation of not assuming good faith was added after the original essay was created (the part that says "As one editor put it"), and that can easily be removed.


 * Your entire argument hinges on this line from the Policies and Guideline page: Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace.


 * This essay does not contradict widespread consensus. No one has shown that it does. Not even the nominator here believes that the essay contradicts AGF, but instead thinks it simply has had a negative impact in usage (which I also disagree with). You are splitting hairs and reaching far to say that this is in conflict of anything that WP:AGF says.


 * This essay was specifically created to support AGF. There were users who rolled their eyes when they see WP:AGF and think it's "flowery" and unrealistic to always assume someone is doing good. Heck, they have a point, which is why assuming good faith is not some kind of policy, because there are situations where we realistically must approach user behavior from a neutral standpoint (vandals, COI and spam accounts, etc). However, with their viewpoint, they threw the baby out with the bathwater, so I put this essay out there, to give those users pause and say "hey, it's not that we have to assume they're some do-gooder, we just have to assume they're not assholes trying to burn everything down". It's a way to reach out and spread the spirit of AGF to more users.


 * I've clearly demonstrated above that the intentions with the essay have had that positive effect, so what purpose does it serve to userfy or delete something when it strengthens WP:AGF?


 * Are you just being thrown by the name of the page? If so, we can move it. If specific wording is the problem, how would you feel about "If you find yourself unable to assume good faith, then at least don't assume bad faith"?


 * Like I said before, when I was notified of this deletion request, I thought it was because it was just an essay that no one used or cared about, and I was ready to accept it being deleted or userfied on that rationality. Then I saw the actual nomination reason, and also saw how it was actually being used in these past few years. Because of the positive impact of this essay, I cannot allow this shallow reasoning to be used to bury what tons of editors have found to be excellent advice and a great way to present AGF. This does not belong to me, it belongs to the community. This belongs in the project namespace. -- Ned Scott 10:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Guidelines do carry somewhat more weight than your comment implies. "Guideline" should really be interpreted as "do this unless you have a good reason not to". We require that guidelines be backed by community consensus, and if something is found within a guideline then it is reasonable to assume there is broad community consensus behind it. This is particularly true of the better known guidelines, such as AGF.


 * AGF does not say that we should assume someone is doing good. It says we should assume someone thinks they are doing good unless we have clear evidence to the contrary. The guideline itself explicitly says that vandalism constitutes such evidence, and that there is no reason to apply AGF to vandals. As for spammers, I think a large proportion of them are under the impression that they are improving the encyclopedia, or at least that they aren't breaking any rules. They presumably think they are doing readers a service by pointing to relevant material, or that Wikipedia constitutes some kind of free web host where people can write what they want. They're wrong, of course, but we can't assume they don't know that. That's why we almost always warn spammers before blocking them.


 * This essay, in its previous incarnation, did indeed say that it was OK to not assume good faith in general. The first sentence was "If you don't feel like assuming good faith about another user's actions, you don't have to." Evidently from this not assuming good faith is acceptable. The block quote at the bottom went further, and said that it isn't a good idea to assume anything about another editor's intentions at all, including assuming good faith. I'm not splitting any hairs to get this, I'm just using the literal meaning of these statements. AGF does say that editors should assume good faith in a large category of situations, and as it is a guideline we can safely say there is consensus behind this principle. Of course there is no hard-and-fast rule that you have to assume all editors are acting in good faith in all situations, as AGF doesn't say that and even if it did there would be exceptions. But that isn't relevant here, as the essay wasn't talking about any of those situations or those exceptions. It was talking about general principles.


 * The essay in its revised form is better and does avoid these problems, even if it isn't terribly profound. If the essay is going to be maintained in this form then I would be prepared to change by comment to Keep. I would suggest a rename, if only because the title doesn't have much to do with the content of the essay any more. Hut 8.5 13:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Userfy - as per Hut 8.5 above, this directly contradicts a well-established behavioural guideline, and such is inappropriate as a general essay. It would be appropriate as a personal essay in someone's user space. Robofish (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC) (Changed to Keep after modification, see below. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC))


 * Discussion How do you guys feel about this version? It rewords the original part a bit to be less confusing about AGF, removes the 'ass' and 'fuck' parts (though I thought the Under Siege 2 quote was bad ass :/ ), and moves the "as one user puts it" to a link on another page, for people who want to read about "not assuming" in general. -- Ned Scott 11:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any real issues with this version, and will change my position to 'keep' above. Robofish (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. While I'm honoured by the lauding of the Under Siege 2 quote (I added it!) I have to say that this is useful simply as an alternative, and very much shortened, version of WP:AGF. I would recommend leaving the expletives in per WP:NOTCENSORED.-- Laun  chba  ller  16:28, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello. If you are under the impression that "WP:NOTCENSORED" is saying "everything is allowed in Wikipedia", it is high time you actually read it to find out that you are wrong. Not only WP:NOTCENSORED explicitly sanctions removal of offensive contents like this, in fact, the rest of WP:NOT says "not everything is allowed". Abusing the name of a link is easy: Once can link to Verifiability and say "Wikipedia requires personal identity verification" – only One would look like a complete fool when readers actually click on that link. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Erm, no. From what I see, it says that something being offensive isn't necessarily reason enough on its own.-- Laun  chba  ller  06:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That's quite true. But we have an additional supporting reason: WP:CIVIL. Although I have seen a lot of NOTCENSORED abuse, I still haven't seen it used as a justification for gross profanity. I don't deny that the line by Penn (and not Casey, as you wrote) was probably a witty perversion of the original saying, but profanity is the grossest form of wit that only appeals to the immature. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Only appeals to the immature? -- Ned Scott 05:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * At best, this is a wishy-washy appeal to apathy which only makes conflict resolution more difficult. At worst, it's contradictory and confusing (the whole point of AGF is that it is to be assumed for as long as humanly possible, but that it has a breaking point). This belongs in userspace if anywhere. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's wishy-washy is AGF's "everybody's a good guy and love and rainbows" appearance to a lot of editors. I think it's important to show a viewpoint of many wikipedians that isn't so... rainbow-ish. A flat and straight forward "don't assume" perspective, which is what AGF should have been all along, considering Wikipedia's emphasize on neutrality. Same spirit, same end result, and certainly doesn't belong hidden away in the userspace. Assumption really is the mother of all fuckups.


 * No one has shown any evidence that it has been grossly misused (or shown any general misuse outside of over-linkage to whenever someone says "don't assume" in a different context). However, this is the first time someone has suggested that it has been confusing. That really gives me pause and fills my head full of "WAT".


 * I don't get it, I really don't get it. This is exactly the kind of thing that keeps me from coming back and being a regularly active editor on this project. People have different view points and different interpretations on things, but instead of living with that, allowing for other viewpoints, everyone tries to force their perspective on everyone else. Having to make an argument to not delete this page, for any version of it, is absurd. Can you people honestly not live with another viewpoint? Is it that hard to understand that most editors don't see "don't assume" the same way you do?


 * Oh noes, someone might see this as contradicting AGF! Someone might also see it as a hidden message that points to a treasure map. If you really feel it hurts something on Wikipedia then you need to show it before we go deleting things or even shoving them down some dark hole.


 * This is so minor, but I'm tired of people chipping away at other editors, because it adds up. It makes you not want to be involved in Wikipedia after a while. This is a toxic mentality that should be stood up to, no matter how minor it is. -- Ned Scott 12:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If what stops you coming back is that you have different core values from the community at large then that is regrettable, but perhaps sadly inevitable. AGF - in other words, unless it is impossible to do so, assume that the person that you disagree with his the project's best interests at heart - is one of the community's core tenets. Things can always change, but we've a long precedent for moving essays which significantly contradict our accepted norms out of projectspace. It'll still be there, you can still link to it, and over time people may come around to broadly agreeing with it - but it's only going to confuse people in projectspace. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)


 * You're not understanding me. I understand that is what you think. You think this contradicts AGF. Others disagree with you, as this MfD clearly shows, as well as in the essay's actual usage in the community at large. It's fine to think what you want about the essay, but treating that view as a fact, or believing that everyone should think the way you do about this essay, is foolish. No matter how you slice it, it will be a matter of opinion. You cannot decide for other people how they view this essay. You cannot use policy to move this page to the userspace, so it falls back on this MfD on what to do with it. So far there is no consensus on moving it to the userspace, and certainly not for deletion.


 * You see, I take issue with your assertions that this violates our guidelines and policies regarding essays, and your assertion on what the greater community thinks of this essay. Especially when presented with usage examples that contradicts your assertion. This is supposed to be a discussion, and yet it feels like a brick wall. -- Ned Scott 17:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak userfy I agree with the original nomination that the AGF/benefit of the doubt distinction doesn't really exist, and I could see this causing some confusion. Some of the usage examples really seem to be more about not assuming bad faith than not assuming at all. While I think Ned has offered a thoughtful critique of AGF here, it doesn't really come through on the essay. Maybe a new essay could better express those ideas. As such, we're asking users to do some mental gymnastics in order to both assume good faith and assume nothing. AGF can have its drawbacks, but it's too core a principle to muddy like this. --BDD (talk) 22:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.