Wikipedia talk:Honesty

Essay
In light of some recent events, I've tried to capture some of my feelings regarding our responsibility to be honest in all of our dealings related to the project. This isn't a criticism, it's an attempt to gel community backing for the above concept, and I welcome comment and improvement. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 22:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your actions are in the best of faith, but this will only bring one more thing for people to accuse eachother of not doing. Every user here should be here to write an encyclopedia, not be beacons of morality to the world. We have television competitions to find those people. Picaroon 22:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but I hope you aren't, heh. I don't present this as a policy or guideline, it's just an essay that I hope will help define what the community expects.  If you can suggest ways of keeping the situation you described from happening, this is the wiki that anyone can edit (visualize a smiley face here). - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I predict that if this catches on, misrepresentaion of this as authoritative will become widespread, like WP:ILIKEIT. Picaroon 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This essay is, in my opinion, focused on how honesty relates to being a good Wikipedian, so I don't agree with the objections presented by Picaroon. Friday (talk)


 * I mean that every time someone, accidentally or on purpose, goes against the commandmants set forth in this essay, they'll be accused of being dishonest. That'll be a personal attack, and this page could act as their defense. Discussions where links to WP:DICK are tossed around operate in a similar fashion. The ideals are good, yes, but suggesting Wikipedians follow all of them is only going to lead to more strife. Picaroon 00:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "I mean that every time someone, accidentally or on purpose, goes against the commandmants set forth in this essay, they'll be accused of being dishonest." Empirically, that's not true. Thousands of editors have "gone against the commandments" here, without anyone throwing the book at them. Life works that way. This essay doesn't exist to hit others with; it exists to remind us to hold our own behavior to higher standards. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Change
Chairboy, we are clearly of like mind and your essay expresses a fundamental part of what I'm grappling with. I would like a make a fundamental change, but hesitate to do so until I have your agreement. The change is to move Wikipedia talk:Honesty to Wikipedia talk:Exhibit Good Faith. This is the core point I'm trying to articulate. Exhibiting good faith is the other side of the coin. Without it, the assumption of good faith becomes the endeavor of a good natured fool. Exhibiting good faith encompasses the notion of honesty but entails far more, and in particular shifts the focus from the concept of morality and ethics to the more pragmatic concerns of what is required for the continued health of Wikipedia. A B Carter (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I like this suggestion. Makes sense, fits. —Doug Bell talk 05:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This does not represent the problem we are currently experiencing
Simple misdirection is not the point. If Essjay had merely said he was a paralegal in Boise instead of a paralegal in Louisville, no one would object to it. The problem we are facing is not about honesty, it's about credentials. There is nothing wrong with simple misdirection. I support Essjay, but let's be clear about what the issues are here. Chick Bowen 04:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this essay
Though this could never be a policy, I strongly agree that it's important for every editor to be honest. There are certain editors I trust -- I would like them not to betray that trust.

It will never be possible now for me to assume good faith with regards to Essjay. In the long run, his unfortunate decisions will have no impact on the project. However, I will now be forced to doubt any assertions that he makes. --N Shar (talk • contribs) 06:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Epigraph
I find it wonderfully apropos that this essay is introduced by an epigraph from a cartoon Disney character. Good job! -- EMET-MET 20:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Your comments are most appreciated.  Smee 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

WP:POINT
I support this essay but large parts of it are already wikipedia policy in WP:POINT. Also, I'm not sure that there should be a problem with users misrepresenting their name, age, heritage or sex on Wikipedia so long as they don't use the misrepresentation to support their view in an argument so maybe this could be changed accordingly? Obviously if someone says he's a 32 year old lesbian woman of Indian heritage while really being a 19 year old straight man of Sephardic Jew heritage then it will help them in their pursuit of anonymity, especially when they have certain roles within wikipedia that could cause stalking and the likes. Of course I'd prefer it if people didn't do that but the reality is throwing some curveballs may be necessary sometimes. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 22:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reality is the problem, as the firestorm elsewhere on-wiki shows. Anonymity means a lack of information, not confabulation, lying, misrepresentation, etc.  The problem exists, as the growing dismay regarding "the situation" clearly indicates.  Increasingly, the community consensus appears to support the idea that lying is unacceptable. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This section seems relevant for my comment about this:
 * "Does not misrepresent their personal background. The choice of anonymity is part of Wikipedia, but it is not a license to fabricate. Decline to share details you wish to keep secret, but when you begin to lie, both you and the project lose credibility."
 * I think if a Wikipedian wants to say (out of the articles of course) that they live in a different state or country and they're 5 years younger/older than they really are, it should be fine, no-one's gonna find out anyway ;) as long as they don't pretend to be better than they really are. On the other hand I might be completely missing the point :) --WikiSlasher 07:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Support
Great writeup, I hope this becomes a policy. Wish to suggest a minor change, remove the phrase "simply to support their argument" in the first bullet: i.e. "Does not say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument ." This would strengthen the message, afterall there is no legitimate reason to be dishonest. --Vsion 04:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, to me too it appears it would be a good idea if this becomes policy one day. (with the improvement that I would expect in the process obviously) Mathmo Talk 10:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And a few other new ones that rose out of similar events... but I can't find them at the moment...  Smee 13:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Support as policy one day. - This would be a great idea. However it looks like there are some other ongoing endeavours going on:
 * 1) Administrators accountability
 * 2) Credentials
 * This one is much better than the other proposals. WP:HONEST is something we should have had all along. --- RockMFR 14:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support
This is much better than WP:CRED as a response to the Essjay affair. Unlike WP:CRED, it doesn't overreact to the problem by abandoning all trust in users, or risk creating an "overclass" of Wikipedians with verified academic credentials. It also fits in very well with WP:AGF. Ultimately, Wikipedia is about trust; even if WP:CRED were implemented, there are still plenty of ways that a dishonest and determined user can subvert the system. Just as we assume good faith, we also need to trust the honesty of other Wikipedians; obviously, those who demonstrate repeated dishonesty lose their editing privileges. Wal ton  Vivat Regina!  15:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT
Regarding this edit, I'm wondering if perhaps I worded the removed text incorrectly. My intention with the original text was to suggest that someone who was stating something that they knew to be incorrect to make a point would be disrupting the project, and that was an element of dishonesty. Thoughts? - C HAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't see anything dishonest about acting as a "Devil's advocate", but I didn't remove it because it's not my essay. However, there's certainly nothing disruptive about it as long as you make it clear that's what you're doing, and I saw this as a misreading of WP:POINT (incidentally, I've nominated the shortcut itself "WP:POINT" at RfD, since that shortcut seems to be a perennial source of misinterpretation of the guideline it points at). --Random832 14:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put the sentence back in for the interim, I think there may be a misunderstanding. Also, the results of the RfD discussion you mention above suggests that there might be some miscommunication about the nature of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt the project to make a point. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Mergeto
I've pulled the Mergeto for Act in good faith, it seems very different from the aims of this essay. I don't wish to claim any type of dumb old WP:OWNership over this, of course, so if I'm off my rocker, edit away, but please consider bringing it here for discussion too. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 23:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

An attempt guage community support on this and related proposals is going on at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification. Please participate. Thank you. WAS 4.250 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Bumped to 'Proposed' and edited to be more guideline like
Considering the weight of opinion backing this, I've bumped it to 'Proposed'. I think the only decision left to wrangle over is if this should be 'Policy' or 'Guideline'. (Personally, I lean to it being a fundamental policy).

I've done some readability copy editing, as well as clear up some messy phrases. We can't guarantee or expect editors to always adhere to 'the truth' since people make mistakes, so I've changed that to 'an honest understanding and application of principles'. --Barberio 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy or Guidline?
 * Support as policy - You are correct, there is enough weight behind this. Smee 19:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Support as policy - WAS 4.250 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay. I knew this would happen. If this becomes policy or even a guideline, it will be far more destructive than helpful. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and here's one of them. Picaroon 22:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you specify how this could reasonably be destructive? The request for honesty seems pretty benign. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 22:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is benign, very benign. That's why I've referred to the page as a good intention on at least two occasions. But intentions are not the same as results. Here's why it will be destructive:
 * Personal attacks. Calling someone dishonest is a personal attack; if someone did that two or three times and had received adequate warnings, I'd block them. But this page will serve to let them off the hook, much like DICK does. "You can't block me, I was just following this guideline."
 * The proposal in no way advises editors to call each other 'dishonest', it requires you to be honest youself. Baseless accusations of dishonesty would still be covered by personal attacks policy and the proposal does not give editors an 'out'. --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't further the goals of the encyclopedia in ways that other policies don't already do. What's the point of a policy that doesn't help the encyclopedia? That's policy-cruft and instruction creep.
 * Making it completely clear that honesty is a requirement seems to further the aims the wiki by explicitly defining an aim that have been previously assumed. --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Implementation will lead to an increased focus on character, but a decreased focus on content; this is the opposite of what an encyclopedia needs and wants. Back to my original objection up at the top of the page, where I only half-jokingly mentioned "beacons of morality," it will lead people to compete to be viewed as "honest." Productivity is more important than behavior. Picaroon 22:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Productivity based on the wrong set of values is wasted productivity. Productivity is *not* more important than behaviour. Would we accept an editor who was as productive as ten other editors, but who's behaviour resulted in worthwhile editors leaving the project? Would we accept a productive editor who ignored NPOV? Would we accept a productive editor who faked sources? --Barberio 23:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In my view, that's a logical fallacy. The three things you suggest, abrasiveness causing others to leave, lack of neutrality, and source-faking, are by definition not productive. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be pedantic, but it sounds as if you're suggesting that honesty gets in the way of writing an encyclopedia, and that asking people not to lie is an unreasonable request. Please help understand what I'm missing, because I doubt that's what you're trying to say. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 22:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't mean that. It isn't the tenet of honesty that I'm having a problem with, it's this essay (it is still an essay, I think, seeing as it isn't a policy, guideline, or process). Even more so now than at the original revision, the tone is bound to come across as some sort of be-all and end-all order about "honesty." Behavioral policies and guidelinese should only implentented insofar as they help the encyclopedia, but I'm yet to see how this is going to help. Naturally honest people are going to do their best to be helpful and truthful, and naturally dishonest people wouldn't heed this even if it was a pillar. With regards to your "unreasonable request" comment, I didn't say anything about asking people to lie, and I'm not sure how I ended up sounding like that; If I did, that isn't my intention. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming the argument is more like: A) people who are honest don't need this guideline; and B) people who aren't honest won't care about this guideline. So that would leave only those people who want to use this guideline in a way that it wasn't intended. That's not my argument, that's how I interpret the above arguments. Wjhonson 23:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can see from my edit-conflicted message, I was just typing something of that sort. Thanks for stating that more clearly and less wordily than me. Picaroon 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I can demonstrate this to be a faulty argument by substitution... "People who don't use personal attacks don't need this policy, people who do use personal attacks will ignore this policy." So, under this argument, we don't need a personal attacks policy either. --Barberio 23:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct, people who are going to ignore NPA policy don't need it. But the people who block them need a reason for blocking them, and preventing further personal attacks is a good block reason last I checked. Unlike "dishonesty," personal attacks are disruptive as a standalone occurrence (for lack of a better word). But is dishonesty disruptive as a standalone occurrence? No. So I don't think the two can be equated. Picaroon 23:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Essjay controversy seems to suggest that it is indeed. An otherwise upstanding user was dishonest, and as a result, the entire project has been shaken and our public credibility has been damaged.  If something like this had community approval a year ago and he was aware of it, perhaps that conflaguration could have been avoided or at least minimized. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 01:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree: the Essjay controversy does not suggest it is needed, but the opposite - that lying about your credentials causes such a lynch mob community approbation that no good-faith editor would dare lie about a credential again - David Gerard 10:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When you stop continuously hysterically comparing fellow editors who expressed concern with racist murderers, then you might start regaining some respect. I'm pretty sure that anyone who wasn't trading off their past & present authority and defending a wiki-insider would have been blocked for such gross incivility and attacks by now. At least I would hope so, given some of the weak excuses for blocks around here. And yes, I do take your characterization as a very personal, utterly unfair, and totally unjustified attack even if you did toss in a snide little strikeout tag this time. Derex 21:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree with Picaroon. It's a fine essay, a wonderful sentiment, and a terrible policy. Derex 00:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support as policy. Let this be a lesson from the Essjay controversy. --Vsion 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One more time, everybody... Policies and guidelines are not created by voting on them. Also, it might surprise the proponents to learn that creating a policy against dishonesty will not magically cause people to be honest. Remember that proposal to outlaw sarcasm?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a policy on sarcasm would be very beneficial... --WikiSlasher 09:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:SARC. Check the links at the bottom, I wish I was kidding but I'm not.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They (and the article) use a different definition for sarcasm than the one I've had in my head for years, but I'm not going to change my usage. --WikiSlasher 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a "proposal to outlaw sarcasm". It was a naïve attempt to point out, in a supposedly descriptive guideline, that using sarcasm (as defined in dictionaries) is, in fact, an example of uncivil behavior.  The reason it was naïve is the same reason it's naïve to suggest "promoting" this essay: people will interpret it as a rule that they can use as a weapon in content disputes.  Remember that policies need to be weighed with the assumption that people will abuse them if you give them a chance.  Let's not have people throwing uncivil WP:HONEST warnings around each others' talk pages.  Wikipedia policy is not a place to indulge in moral philosophizing, it turns out. -GTBacchus(talk) 08:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay only. The less policycruft, including guideline cruft, the better. This is essentially a commentary on Don't be a dick, after all. May I commend for your reading http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/UnNews:Online_encyclopedia_Wikipedia_bans_sarcasm - David Gerard 10:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay, we've got enough policies and guidelines. This is my reason for objection however. If I want to say I've eaten every kind of donut in the world and have peglegs why can't I? Just don't believe everything you read on the Internet ;) --WikiSlasher 10:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay. A great idea, but Picaroon's comments have hit the nail on the head. --- RockMFR 04:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essay, or no tag at all. Don't ruin a good thing by turning it into a "rule".  Rules are not solutions to every problem, and they introduce new problems of their own.  Trying to make rules to make people "be good" is especially fraught with unintended consequences.  Let it be a good essay; they're better than policies. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Essjay only... --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guideline. It tells those inclined to be dishonest "You're not wanted here."  And as far as I'm concerned, they're not.  (and btw, democracy is paramount, thus my VOTE)  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 23:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's over. This isn't going to be a guideline. Second of all, Wikipedia is not a democracy. We don't make decisions by voting. Picaroon 00:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

How will this look?
Just a note. Has it occurred to those opposing this proposal how the following statement will read to someone assessing Wikipedia's credibility...
 * "Someone proposed honesty guidelines, but they were rejected."

Do you think that looks good, because I don't. I don't want to explain to people why Wikipedia is a worthwhile project if we can't even make a commitment to honesty. This is about more than policy enforcment, it's about how we present the project to the world, and what our values are. --Barberio 00:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It will look just fine, if we do something else that resolves the Essjay problem. A magic word doesn't make this the best or only approach. Personally, I think this does absolutely nothing to solve that problem; it's just grand empty rhetoric. Essjay knew perfectly well that what he was doing was wrong when he used bogus arguments in content disputes. He didn't need this policy to tell him that. And if it becomes more than rhetoric, I agree with Picaroon that it will be destructive. Derex 00:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather "Somebody wrote an essay on honesty and a lot of people like it." I like this lots as an essay; I think the idea of making it a guideline or (FSM help me) policy is horrible. Anyone who needs to be told that honesty is a good idea when working in good faith on the encyclopedia is too thick to understand why - David Gerard 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not nice to talk about nice overtrusting people like that. People who say things like "I don’t really have a problem with it" when told their employee lied to the press just might need a reminder that honesty is important. I think you owe someone an apology for calling him "too thick". I think Jimbo is very smart. WAS 4.250 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I like this as a guideline because it tells those who aren't inclined to be honest: "You're not wanted here." And I do think that should be our stance.  Stevie is the man!  Talk &bull; Work 23:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

A cautionary note
Don't make me write another of these! - David Gerard 10:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Write one. Write two. Why limit yourself. Heck, why not spend all your time on Wikia. WAS 4.250 21:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't lying accepted in some cases?
One thing i noticed that popped up over and over in the EssJay discussion was that it was generally accepted (by no less than Jimbo himself) that editors make up some fake details about their life to throw off wikistalkers. Wouldn't this guideline/policy conflict with that? Or would you have to say "I've made up these details to throw off the psychos" (thus making the lies ineffective)?MikeURL 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a glaring problem in this... Making up fake details to throw off Wikistalkers is no more or less effective than simply not stating your details. I flat define anyone, up to and including Jimbo, to demonstrate a logical argument to support the idea that misguiding readers provides any more 'safety' from stalking than not providing information in the first place.
 * Using Anonymity for protection is acceptable, but editors should accept that this means they have to trade off their ability to claim a background. Allowance and acceptance of fabricating backgrounds is what got us in the Essjay mess in the first place. If you don't want people to know stuff about you, don't tell them stuff about you. --Barberio 18:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It would send a hypothetical stalker down on the wrong path which could be effective in the rare case someone was actually trying to find out who you were, although I have no evidence up of course. --WikiSlasher 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * However, in practice this does not occur. Someone who is dedicated to discovering who you are for nefarious means is not going to be troubled by 'misdirection', and it's a tissue paper defence. It may even leak information about you in ways you don't expect. The best idea is always to simply withhold information, and remain anonymous by anonymity.
 * On wikipedia, and in many other published forms, there are four ways you can identify your works.
 * Anonymity. This means you leave no identity associated with the work, at all. This means no link from the work to any kind of person, or any kind of unifying identity.
 * Pseudonymity. This means that works are identified solely by a unifying but otherwise unidentified identity. Such as signing your works as 'Big C.'
 * Misattribution. Providing false identity to works, either a created identity, or an co-opted identity.
 * True identity. Providing your work under your own identity.
 * Of these it is almost universally accepted that Misattribution is a poor method of publishing, and makes the work highly suspect. Works published with misattribution are almost always considered discreditable. --Barberio 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

T-th-that's all, folks
Am I the only one who thinks that quoting a cartoon character here (and not even one particularly known for his honesty) is rather silly?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Suitable alternative quote is now used. I hope it meets your approval. --Barberio 20:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really :) But then it's no big deal either way, I'm not much in favor of quotes on such pages anyway but they're not really bothering me either.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Honesty a requirement?
I've reverted a change, and I wanted to open up a discussion here in case anyone disagrees. I don't own this by any stretch of the imagination, but I felt the change altered the meaning of the essay significantly away from its original purpose. If I'm a hopped up on goofballs crazy pants person, lemme know. - C HAIRBOY (☎) 17:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade to guideline
I'd like to see this page upgraded to guideline. Thoughts? Assume good faith is a guideline. This is the flip side of the same coin. Jehochman Talk 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't like the idea, which looks like instruction creep to me. Too "touchy-feely", reminds me of boring "corporate values". Sure, honesty is a good thing, but it's something that one would want to expect from anyone, inside and outside Wikipedia, but writing a guideline about it is not magically going to make anyone more honest. "Assume good faith" is a useful guideline because it reminds us that we can't read minds--a problem that tends to be augmented with online communications. But reminding people to be honest? I can't see the use of that. Keep it as an essay, like many people suggested in the discussion above. --Itub (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Jehochman. Actually, it should be a policy: any Wikipedia administrator (or any other position of authority) who willfully and knowingly lies ought, in most instances, to be immediately sacked. Printing lies is far worse than breaking 3RR, being uncivil, "wheel-warring" and other innovative wikisins.
 * I propose that we push this forward.Proabivouac (talk) 04:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I support this being a guideline. --Barberio (talk) 07:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. It's unfortunate that we have to formally specify that lying is wrong, but apparently we have to. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure I'll Support this upgrade, at the very least this deserves an Infopage tag, although I'd prefer a guideline tag.  MBisanz  talk 18:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What do we do now, just upgrade it ourselves? It might be interesting to see who, if anyone, objects.Proabivouac (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What's the virtue of making this a guideline? Is there any advantage? How does it benefit the encyclopedia? Honestly, I'm unsure why this shouldn't stay marked as an essay, but I could certainly be convinced otherwise. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support this becoming a guideline. It's a decent essay, but whoever said "you can't legislate honesty" hit it on the head.  This seems like instruction creep to me as well, particularly all the bits about how to behave in discussions.  Darkspots (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The trouble here is that the existence of "Wikirules" has become an argument against expecting and upholding real-world ethical standards. As it is, when the next Essjay or Mantanmoreland comes along, we're sure to hear, "Yes, he lied about who he was, but did he break any Wikipedia policies?" as if dishonesty were more acceptable than reverting an article four times in a 24-hour period (for example.) In this respect, it's a shame that this will only be a guideline, for the response will be, "But that's only a guideline!" But it's better than nothing.
 * So, MZMcBride, what virtue do you see in preventing it from becoming a guideline (or a policy)?
 * And User:Darkspots, honesty is legislated all the time, see for example, perjury. Many organizations expect adherence to ethical standards above and beyond the requirements of the law. We do have rules here; they reflect our values: effective game-playing.
 * If there is something you truly can't legislate, it's subjective concepts such as "civility," but that doesn't stop us from trying. This method breeds dishonest but smooth-talking or poker-faced snakes.Proabivouac (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you read this lately? It has the sentence: honest can only be adapt to gentlemen, otherwise, to be honest will be too naive.  I can delete that as easily as you can, but random nonsensical sentences are beside the point—I don't think this essay holds together and makes a coherent point.  It's a bunch of ideas about honesty, some general, some specific.  When I brought up the old saw about legislating honesty, what I meant was no policy, no guideline is going to make people more honest.  So I repeat MZMcBride's question, how does this benefit the encyclopedia? Darkspots (talk) 00:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about the point that says that a Wikipedian Does not hide their personal point of view in order to pretend they don't have one. With a link to NPOV. Sometimes I put my personal point of view aside.  I guess.  What am I doing that's so wrong if I do that?  I mean, I will put a properly referenced piece of information into an article even if I disagree with it, politically or whatever. Darkspots (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate this objection. Accordingly, I have removed the paragraphs following the "do's and dont's," which were poorly-written and unnecessary.
 * Instead of defending every bit of this essay as it exists, I propose pruning it into something which we can agree should be enshrined as a guideline, and ultimately enforced as a policy.
 * I agree also that "do not hide your point of view" is much less compelling and more debatable than "do not lie about your background," "do not misrepresent sources," and the like. We should be focusing on clear-cut examples of unacceptable dishonesty - something for which we'd demote, block or ban people. Being biased or failing to disclose (or reflect upon) one's biases, for example, isn't unethical by real-world standards. Lying about who you are or about what sources say is unambiguously so.
 * I would also like, upon this pruning, to change "An honest Wikipedian does not…" to the simpler and more instructional "Do not…."Proabivouac (talk) 09:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

←There are several compelling arguments against turning this essay into a guideline above, in the previous discussion. Folks should glance through that. Darkspots (talk) 11:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per Cla68. VG &#x260E; 10:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think this is a useful page, and an accurate representation of wikipedia's ethos, but it's a restatement of policy - it doesn't give guidance on any particular area.  I don't mean any criticism whatsoever of this page, it's just that essay is a more accurate description of it than guideline.  --Hugh Charles Parker (talk - contribs) 14:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support this as a guideline. Although many of the examples are mere restatement of other policies, as an overarching principle it applies in places where those policies do not. However, one should emphasize that safety always takes precedence over honesty: just as you should not tell an enemy soldier where to find your family, there are times when the safest action for someone is to make a misleading statement (for example, if a wikistalker is after their personal information). As long as this affects only their relationship to other editors, and not their content editing per se, they shouldn't be held accountable for this subsequently. Dcoetzee 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to oppose. I'm actually surprised by my response above, even though it was only 6 months ago. This guideline is useless in the sense that it doesn't tell contributors anything they don't already know - the equivalent of a guideline saying "be nice" - there is no deeper understanding of process or contribution to be gained by reading this guideline. Dcoetzee 22:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose This is extremely disappointing. This is one of the worst ideas ever to make wp:honesty into a guideline. Sentriclecub (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is why?24.18.140.135 (talk) 10:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would come across as a jerk if I discussed it. I just plead to others to think very hard on this one. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support It will be useful I believe. --AAA765 (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Won't this just be another acronym to condescendingly throw at people? "Please familiarize yourself with WP:HONEST" seems like it would be a handy addition to our collection of passive-aggressive insults. Haukur (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethics for dummies
I'd also like to call your attention to this very short essay I wrote in the wake of the Essjay scandal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proabivouac/Ethics_for_dummies I've since developed misgivings about items four and five, but I think that the others accurately, if laconically, capture the spirit of what we might be aiming for here. I would not like to see an elaborate essay about what honestly means so much as a practical policy we can point to to desysop and block liars, to which "do not misrepresent sources" would make a fine addition.Proabivouac (talk) 09:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits to address some concerns
Some of the concerns raised above prompted me to edit various parts of the page. It's now a significantly different set of recommendations than was commented on before, so can people who objected look over it again, and we can see if there are still any problems. --Barberio (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really wish I had read the March 2007 discussions before first commenting: I would have been a lot more focused in my initial statement.  There's a lot of people up there who express what I'm feeling well, but the summary of Picaroon's thoughts is fine: A) people who are honest don't need this guideline; and B) people who aren't honest won't care about this guideline. So that would leave only those people who want to use this guideline in a way that it wasn't intended.  I'm not saying anybody in this discussion falls into the last category, but it's hard to see the utility of this as policy.  Everything except the Essjay clause is based on what an editor knows or believes.  So what works better as a blocking rationale:  "Continually inserts sources that fail WP:RS despite repeated warnings" or "Violates WP:HONESTY; I know editor knows that rag is a pack of lies".  Or, in a discussion, "Please ignore the comments of ; per WP:HONESTY, she has failed to disclose that despite her seeming neutrality and moderation on the question of the statehood of Kosovo in this discussion, I checked ExampleBlog and I strongly suspect that she's a rabid Kosovar nationalist". We have a long tradition of evaluating our fellow Wikipedians on the basis of their on-wiki edits, and nothing amps up the drama like a link to an off-wiki blog or website where one of our contributors has been indiscreetly forthright.  I can't imagine that any other way to establish what an editor believes in his own head would lead to less drama, or mistakes, or bad feeling.


 * As an essay I think this is an excellent idea—let us state our principles clearly—and recent edits have impoved it. Darkspots (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the proposed guideline says anything about being blocked for being dishonest, nor would or could it if promoted to guideline. It could possibly be used to strengthen foundation for action against editors being disruptive in other ways, but as it stands nothing here is a blockable offence. It's a behavioural guideline not a coercive compulsion. --Barberio (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the difference between the English word "guideline" and a Guideline could be the entire source of the confusion here. You seem to want to make this essay into the former, which would be fine if it were possible to do without making this into a Guideline as well, which would as a matter of course be something that would be cited in discussions, blocks, etc. Maybe everything that other people and I have been saying up to now makes more sense seen in that particular light?  As a statement of principle it's fantastic; in the real world of Wikipedia, if this is promoted there would almost certainly be uses to which it is put that you can't predict.  Darkspots (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As presently formulated, this essay is about more than just “honesty”. The fourth bullet, for instance is really about “integrity” – as it calls for the opposite of “hypocrisy” – and the fifth is about “forthrightness”.  All three of these may have a place as “guideline-worthy”, but I think it might be best accomplished by incorporating them into WP:CIVIL, because these are all things that contribute to a furthering of “civility”.  However, like Darkspots and others, I’m unsure that the present encapsulation of honesty, per se, adds anything on its own.  It’s easy to say that lying is bad and to be avoided by Wikipedians (and, perhaps to a less universal extent, this should include deception), but despite the frequent accusations of lying made on AN/I, RfC, and elsewhere, it’s hard to prove intent over ignorance or misperception.  Considering that off-WP activity can no longer be used for evidence (per WP:OUTING), it would be a rare case indeed that could be proven “beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt”.  That begs the question of to what purpose this essay would serve if elevated to the status of a guideline.  Askari Mark (Talk) 19:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to WP:CIVIL and WP:PRIV

 * "Editors are reminded that while you may expect an assumption of good faith, this is based on the counter-assumption of honesty in your actions."


 * "Does not hide their personal point of view..."

So, if you think another editor is dishonest then you may cease to AGF? And if you think that another editor is a malicious troll then it would dishonest not to declare your opinion? And if you have any kind of interest or POV, you must declare it? Well, it is my honest opinion that this is part of a wave of attempts to undermine WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:PRIV by ad hominem means - "give a dog a bad name and then hang it". It seems of a part with WP:TEND, WP:CPUSH and the like. How do we avoid this encroachment? Are we required to give full disclosure of our occupation, business, financial interests, political allegiance, religious beliefs, nationality, criminal record, sex, age, race, etc before we edit any article which touches on these matters? Please could the authors of this guideline start this new era of the open kimono by honestly declaring how they plan to enforce and apply it? Colonel Warden (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Some days have elapsed and we have no response. I shall therefore revert the status of this page. While I am here, please note this practical example at AFD. Here we have a case in which an editor seems to be pursuing a vendetta against another editor by nominating one of his articles for deletion but he has failed to declare his personal animosity. This seems unethical as a matter of natural justice. How does this putative guideline add any value? Might it lead to a worse situation in which editors constantly have to declare their distaste for other editors... Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay (2)
Per discussions above there was no consensus to promote to guideline. Please discuss further, and please take steps to make the broader community aware that some editors wish to promote it to guideline.

For several reasons this seems like the sort of page that's better off as an essay. It has large amounts of overlap with existing guidelines. There's the potential for an unduly aggressive edge to statements such as 'Please see WP:HONESTY' (which can go over as a condescending implication that someone is not honest). Perhaps most of all, honesty does not fit under the umbrella of a behavioral guideline because it is about intention rather than behavior. It is very difficult to distinguish deliberate dishonesty from various good faith explanations (typographical error, fatigue, etc.). While honesty is certainly a good thing, not every good idea is suitable for guideline. No angry mastodons is an essay too, and perhaps such essays are more successful when they persuade rather than attempt to force. Durova Charge! 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the real world people are sanctioned for lying. It should be the same here.  Mandacity is very harmful to the project. Being truthful is a skill that takes practice.  We're not going to sanction people for being less than perfectly honest, but we can certainly sanction them for actively trying to be deceptive. This should be at least a guideline if not policy. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In order to do what you say, this page doesn't have to be "promoted". It doesn't even have to exist. Active deception is already against any common sense understanding of our already-existing policies, guidelines, etc. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with GTBacchus; active deception is handled through existing policies/guidelines. And unfortunately sometimes people do catch the community's wrath for being less than perfectly correct, even when the error was made in good faith.  That sort of drama is worth guarding against, and having this as a guideline (with its somewhat hot-button acronym) would be more likely to fan the flame wars.  Durova Charge! 17:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "please see WP:HONESTY" is a little less abrasive than "please see WP:DICK"... but not much. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Have to say, I think that it was unwise of you to demote this back down to essay based on one other person agreeing with you in the space of a day.
 * And I refute the claim that there wasn't consensus. Reviewing the straw poll up the talk page, I count eight to three between support and oppose, with opposition concerns discussed and refuted, or the page altered to correct where it could.
 * Reverting the demotion. --Barberio (talk) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I will also note, I'm being generous with my count. One of the oppositions appears to be an "I Don't Like It" who refuses to give reasoning for their opposition, not even a 'per', which is historically disregarded in determining consensus on the wiki. --Barberio (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps that missed the non-bolded opinions? I count 7-7.  Please see the request above to request additional community input before attempting to repromote.  Even an 8-3 majority would be an unacceptably small basis upon which to justify promotion.  Try WP:RFC.  Durova Charge! 22:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this would be useful as an essay, in that it connects a number of policies together in an interesting way. But it doesn't make any sense as a normative guideline, because 1. it doesn't establish any new rules, and 2. it doesn't provide any resolution for violations. I don't think anybody can name one situation in which this policy might be applied where another cannot be. Dcoetzee 02:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How about infopage ? That was suggested as a compromise. But not all guidelines are normative, and I'd still prefer guideline. --Barberio (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction seems hazy. Looked at things such as Free speech, which answers a consistent argument that gets raised by difficult editors.  Not sure how this fits in that group; please explain?  Durova Charge! 04:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The objection raised at the moment is that it can't be enforced, and that it only serves as a single statement of how the community currently views various policies. So it seems to me that being an Information page instead would be a good thing, since we all seem to agree that honesty is something that the project requires, and 'describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices'. Stronger than 'just an essay', but without the hangups people seem to have about thinking a guideline has to be 'enforceable' and so on. --Barberio (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Mind if I tweak it a little in that case?  There's a difference between candor and honesty.  It gets to the tension between the privacy policy and the COI guideline.  Durova Charge! 20:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)