Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 2

The logo is not silly
Do not insult the works of others thank you. You are welcome to say you dont like it but do not insult it. WP:AGF and WP:NPA applise to this very article and I see no evidence of it.

Contribution of some 3rd party should not result in me being accused of using sockpuppets. -- Cool CatTalk 13:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it's silly or not but there isn't a consensus to have it added so I've removed it. The anon keeps adding it with little support. Rx StrangeLove 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Does AGF extend to suspicious IP edits?
Now that there are some nice tools for scanning IP edits, does AGF extend to those edits? There's a type of vandalism associated with them: just inserting a word or two of nonsense in one or two places that can linger for months. Sometimes it's not easy to guage if such an edit is vandalism or just seemingly out of context jargon. Assume Good Faith on IP edits? —Daelin @ 2006–01–07 13:46Z
 * Yes, I think you should assume good faith for IP edits. Again, as is always the case, you don't need to continue to assume this when evidence of bad faith emerges.  --Cheapestcostavoider 05:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Logo
I love this logo. Can't we even have a small thumbnail of it? DigitalNinja11 07:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As Gmaxwell said in his removal of the logo earlier, it's not very professional (and IMO, clutters up a page that should be simple to read). —Locke Cole • t • c 07:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I can tell you love that logo...almost all of your edits jammed the AGF monster on a number of pages. I don't think any "logo" should be placed on WP:AGF at all. To anyone who still feels some sort of need for a logo for rewarding users or for use in userboxes, I have uploaded Image:Wiki-halo.png as an alternative.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  09:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I will continue adding the logo until you decide to let it stay. When you ask for another wikipedian to create something for it, the least you can do is be respectful and use it. I'm not going to insult his work especially since I asked for it.Meepo4 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like "no" to me. —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, the logo doesn't belong. It doesn't add anything and there's no consensus at all for it's inclusion. It's not really fair for you to create all this extra work for everyone...the page has been semi'd twice now not to mention all the rollbacks and the blocks. It looks like this disruption is being caused by a single person, couldn't you just use it on your userpage? Rx StrangeLove 00:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be disruptive, I just want to see this image used. The creator put hard work into it, and I tried to make a good faith contribution to the encyclopedia when I first added it. Why do you have to insult the works of others? This is the person from earlier, but Curps keeps blocking every account I use. I'm not the only one who wants it included. JGW7 01:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you, a Cool Cat sock? Seriously, go away, get a life, the consensus is that the image is unencyclopedic and does not belong. Period. Hexagonal 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Accusing someone of being a sockpuppet is incivil and could be interpreted as a personal attack, please avoid doing so. NSL E (T+C) 07:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a personal attack alright and Hexagonal is definately one. -- Cool CatTalk 17:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I liked [ my version] better. &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  17:42, Jan. 24, 2006
 * Well I dont. Geez. -- Cool CatTalk 19:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why Helen Keller? Is she the person best known for assuming good faith? -Will Beback 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * See here. (Helen Keller writing on faith.) FreplySpang (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, does it hurt you that much to leave it there? Why can't we just agree to include it? SmokeyTheBear 16:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus, WP:3RR. It's never OK to use a parade of sleeper sockpuppets like you're doing. -- Curps 16:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The logo isn't hurting anyone. Why can't we just build on each others work instead of constantly marginalizing each other? I'm not here for vandalism, I'm just tired of everyone being so hostile to legitimate contributors while abusive sockpuppets and GNAA trolls are given respect and leniency. SmokeyTheBear 18:18, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It hurt me. I've died a little bit inside. There, are you happy? Melchoir 22:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What to do?
From the page:
 * So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism.

How does one correct an error without reverting it? Isn't that exactly what correcting an error is - reverting it? - Andre Engels 19:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps one could revert with an explanatory edit summary, instead of rvv or rvvandal. -- Ec5618 20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

request for minor edit
In "because the person is likely to take it in a good natured fashion", there should be a hyphen in "good-natured", and I think "likely" should be replaced by "more likely", since it's unfortunately often not the case the people take it in a good-natured fashion when you correct their errors. Joriki 09:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Done.  howch e  ng   {chat} 01:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Protected against vandalism?
Huh? If it's being vandalised it, semi-protect it. If it still gets vandalised, block the vandals. Why is a wikipedia guideline page fully protected against vandalism? Stevage 11:36, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Because nothing was working, they were still vandalizing it when it was semi-protected. For a time, this talk page was semi-protected against vandalism as well. However, I'd be willing to give it a try unprotected to see if the vandal has gone away.. (whoever unprotects it better keep an eye on it though). —Locke Cole • t • c 11:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

good-faith(?) vandalism in progress
Consider the history of solid of revolution - user(s) from several seeminlgy unrelated IP adresses keeps editing the page in trying to paste a formula without relating it to the context, and saving after every couple of characters typed. I already put explanations on several of the anonymous talk pages, but it does not seem to help! It's maybe good faith, but... what can we do? &mdash; MFH:Talk 00:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How many shortcuts for this page
FYI, see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Shortcuts. --&#160;Omniplex 13:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable to everyone
I'm going through the guidelines and policies for the first time. Near the end about what happens when assuming bad faith: "The ideal is to make articles acceptable to everyone." Is this actually the case? To me, this reads as, make it into a variation of newspeak where it says absolutely nothing at all or is so ambiguous that anybody can read whatever they like into it. Or, as has been the case with the article I'm actively trying to contribute to at the moment, Nineteen Eighty-Four, just let everybody keep adding whatever they want to it until it is so huge that nobody wants to spend the time to go through it. I'm assuming you want a useful encyclopedia, not an accumulation of the world's toxic waste.

I realize you're stating that's the ideal and that other policies need to be balanced against it. I just wish that would either be explicitly stated there or the ideal left to the NPOV policy page where all the necessary context is provided. Adding/redefining/summarizing a well-defined policy on a guideline page is not making anything clearer.

My ideal of NPOV as I would state it: To me, that goes the extra step of not only assuming good faith, but requiring that those participating show enough good faith that they provide experts that support their contribution, causing them to also, at least at a basic level, comply with the verifiability rule too. I really don't think these rules need to conflict (and mislead) if they are expressed more precisely.In1984 23:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Make articles reflect what the majority of the experts agree upon without adding additional opinion or conclusions to it.
 * You misunderstand NPOV. We don't try to write 'what is correct' rather what we try to write is what is undisputable fact. Bob says the moon is made of cheese, sue says the moon is made of rock. They do not agree on the composition of the moon but both can agree that bob and sue have made their respective claims. Obviously it's not always simple to apply, and some sense has to be applied, but thats the spirit. What you propose would involve intentionally biasing articles because someone would have to pick the experts (or the method for picking experts). --Gmaxwell 21:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that the objective is "undisputable fact", not truth. That's the first line of verifiability.  No dispute there. :)  I see NPOV and verifiability as recursive, so I don't see a conflict in selecting experts. Even if there is one, it's a conflict that's important because it is part of the foundation for the encyclopedia.  Leaving it up to votes or changing the language to offend no one turns this into a collection campaign speeches, not knowledge.  Even then, I'm offended when I come across meaningless writing.  So the goal of being acceptable to everyone is still impossible to satisfy.


 * If there's an expert problem, it's more likely to be in articles that cover things like music and film. Even there, certain parts lend themselves to expert review as opposed to claims of fingers up and down.  For example, if a society of animators that includes nearly all animators and cuts across company and international boundaries declares a certain film's animation as the best ever, it would be fair to cite that as support for a statement in an article on the film that its animation, if nothing else, is the best.  As for the fingers up and down areas that remain, you can link to sites dedicated to fan reviews like IMDB and simply exclude it from the article as something that is impossible to present without potential bias.  As I understand verifiability and NPOV, if neither can be satisfied, leave it out, or, as an alternative, insert a statement to that effect so people reading it are not tempted to keep adding their view. 200.50.160.167 06:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

AGF exceptions
I changed "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring." to "This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppetry and edit warring."

this being because I've seen several sockpuppets cynically remind other editors to "assume good faith!" - new accounts, mind you, with a sophisticated knowledge of WP rules and procedure, immediately involving themselves in edit wars - and I think it appropriate to note that in such cases, good faith ought not be the mandated default assumption.Timothy Usher 07:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're proposing. No assumption of good faith for new users?  That's certainly not a good idea.  Plenty of people read articles here for a long time (thus becoming familiar with how everything works) and only register once something piques their interest.  The presumption of good faith can be rebutted by evidence of bad faith.  Sometimes, this is pretty simple, and a quick glance is enough to see bad faith.  If there is strong evidence that a user is a "sockpuppet," then you don't have to assume they aren't.  But you shouldn't assume that anybody is, or force them to somehow prove that they aren't (I don't even know how they would do this) right off the bat.  --Cheapestcostavoider 20:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I've been on the same pages as Timothy recently, and I know where he's coming from. An editor met with opposition, and then a string of new editors showed up and began to support him. They reverted aggressively to his version, followed him to different pages which they'd have been unlikely to stumble on by chance, and voted for what he voted for, and supported him in discussion. One was found through a user check to be operating from his IP. Then, while he was blocked, a new user showed up, said on the talk page that he was new but agreed with the arguments of the (temporarily blocked) user, and then reverted back to his version, and also started an edit war. The blocked user was asked on his talk page if he had any connection any of the new users who supported him, and he said no. Unfortunately, he forgot that he was logged on as one of them at the time, and his signature betrayed him! ! ! !

Since then, five new users have turned up to support him, all using a particular (and very idiosyncratic) spelling mistake, and using similar language and displaying similar behaviour. A checkuser hasn't shown any link between this user and the more recent newcomers, but they could be meatpuppets who joined Wikipedia at his request in order to help him to get more than three reverts a day. They show little interest in editing other articles. One of them has 42 article edits, of which 37 are reverts to the version of the established sockpuppeter. The established editors who object are constantly told to "assume good faith".

In my experience, genuine newcomers don't normally know how to revert (unless it's a revert of just a sentence, which they insert or delete manually), and don't know how to track contributions, and don't edit war with such confidence against established users. Voting, reverting, and following another user's contributions are signs of sockpuppetry from brand new users. I support Timothy's addition, though of course I would not want a new user to be labelled as a sockpuppet on the basis of having the same POV as another user. AnnH ♫ 21:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

When people are being obviously disruptive. Other wikipedia policies take over... -- Cat out 11:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith: a stupid policy?
What would happen if you did away with the WP:AGF? Isn't the better thing to do all other things being equal, to "assume bad faith and/or stupidity", and (more importantly, I think) "assume other people will assume bad faith and/or stupidity about you"? This is just a starting assumption; an onus which can be displaced. But that onus is on you, the editor, to displace it: to establish bny the content of what you're writing that you're acting in good faith and intelligently. You're best placed to discharge the presumption; much better than another editor who is required to give you the benefit of the doubt and liberally construe your words. They're your words - it's in your gift to make them unambiguous, clear, courteous and intelligent. This has the advantage of, more or less, replicating the circumstnances in which we find ourselves when we get out of bed every day - this is how we do engage in the real world. Of course, we might modify this for someone we have already come across before ("he was pretty sensible last time; no reason to think he won't be sensible now") and for people we know we will have to come across again (this is the analogue of the first round of an iterated prisoner's dilemma) - but the discretion whether to actually assume good faith rests with the construer, rather than being an enforceable entitlement of the construed.

A thought, at any rate. ElectricRay 22:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think rather that your advice serves at a companion to this&*mdash;assume good faith of others and write so that your own good faith is clear. ("Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send.") You should be obligated to do this as well, yes, but not as a replacement for assuming good faith of others. Both are necessary. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair point, I suppose - but the latter aspect is the more important one. We can't legislate to force people to assume good faith, and there's not much point trying. What's the consequence of not assuming good faith? Indeed, how can you ever establish someone isn't? It seems to even having this "rule" out there serves as an invitation to classic passive aggressive (and illegitimate) tactics. Let's face facts: say, "folks: have thick skins. If people aren't getting what you're saying, it's your problem". Because fundamentally, it is. ElectricRay 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We can force peole to assume good faith as if they dont they will likely end up getting blocked. -- Cat out 11:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Loaded term?
I suggest that we rename Assume good faith (perhaps Benefit of the doubt instead?) since "assume good faith" seems to be a loaded term. This is because if one user (User A) tells another user (User B) to "assume good faith", User A also unintentionally implies that User B is "assuming bad faith", thus offending User B as well as giving others the impression that User A to ironically not "assuming good faith" himself. Any thoughts on this proposal?-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 17:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO, assuming bad faith is not in itself demonstrating bad faith. Your intentions aren't bad, you're not working against the project, and you're not trying to interfere with anyone - you just assume that others are. Stevage 10:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Understood, but some editors might be offended from being labeled as "assuming bad faith", regardless of the original intentions of the statement, since the implied word "bad" in the statement gives the statement its negative connotation.-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 20:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

To be bounded in a nut's hell
JA: It's not a question of whether someone is working against you — hell, maybe you're the bad guy — it's a question of whether they intend to comply with the norms of conduct that they agreed to comply with as a condition of using the WP software. Plus, it's better to state the principle in positive terms, instead of implying that it only applies when something has gone wrong. Jon Awbrey 05:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice, maybe the "evidence to the contrary" needs clarification though. People might think see evidence all around them when dealing with their least favourite users....Stevage 10:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

New essay
Hi, I think this is a good place to announce that I've written a brief Wikipedia essay about the relation between WP:AGF and WP:VAND. It's called On assuming good faith. Feedback and imrpovements are welcome. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Expect nothing
I've always been surprised by the intelligent and wise comments one finds on Wikipedia, but I think it's dangerous to assume them. I've always been a Chestertonian pessimist, as he wrote in Heretics: "Blessed is he that expecteth nothing, for he shall be gloriously surprised."

I think that expecting nothing is a wiser approach than assuming good faith; it leaves one open to appreciate sources of wisdom, but much more ready to understand vandals and POV pushers. What else should we expect from mere human beings? --SteveMcCluskey 18:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming good faith isn't about expecting anything. It's about giving people the benefit of the doubt until/unless you they force you not to. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Giving people the benefit of the doubt is precisely the kind of position I was proposing. The statement "assume good faith" implies that you expect others to behave with good faith; I don't expect that.  I much prefer your formulation "give the benefit of the doubt," which was proposed earlier on this page. --SteveMcCluskey 19:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the formulation "assume good faith" implies any expectation. Nobody has to expect anything, you just give the benefit of the doubt, i.e., you just assume good faith until proven wrong.  "Assume" doesn't mean "expect". -GTBacchus(talk) 09:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's isn't even so much about being forced not to.... Someone could almost always be acting in good faith, for example a penis image vandal might think he's helping to convince us to turn off open editing which he believes is a bad policy. So in that regard, AGF is an admonishment to stay focused on people's behaviors, which we can be fairly sure of, rather than their intentions, which we can never know with great confidence. --Gmaxwell 13:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's generally fairly clear when someone is deliberately vandalising pages. When it's not, and particularly when the person making the changes is a new user, then assuming they're acting in good faith seems like a good policy: removing their changes without even indicating a good reason why is only going to drive away people who want to improve articles. For example, I noticed one page on my watch-list yesterday had been marked as 'reverting vandalism' after someone changed the first flight date of an old military aircraft. Yet five minutes on Google found a number of pages claiming that the each of the two flight dates was correct, so it appears there's a genuine disagreement. That's the kind of thing which should have been discussed on the talk page before the original editor changed it, but someone else had decided to claim it was vandalism instead, rather than reverting it and suggesting a discussion on the talk page. As a relatively new editor who's read Wikipedia for quite a while before I registered, I have to say I've seen more problems caused by anti-vandals with 'revert fever' than from actual vandals. Mark Grant 17:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)