Wiktionary talk:Assume good faith

This proposed policy has been adapted from Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Last version 06:00, 27 January 2006 by User:Curps -- Psy guy 19:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I agree with the general tone of this draft policy. However some contributors are malicious, for example 130.179.29.152 who deleted the content of hundreds of articles before being stopped. I cannot accept that this user acted in good faith. Jonathan Webley 10:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You make a very good point. However, I don't think Assume good faith means that editors have to be apathetic or overly polite about an edit. The IP example that you gave committed blatant vandalism, pure and simple. Assume good faith should have kicked in on the IP's first edit. Malicious blanking should not be assumed on the IP's first edit. I have hit buttons and screwed things up before that I have had to go out to fix. After the being corrected and warned, the IP persisted. You no longer have to assume good faith because you know that the IP's contributions are in bad faith. AGF should never to used to permit vandalism, it is to make sure that contributors act appropriately. It should go along with established users biting new users over actual mistakes. At least this is how I interpret this policy. -- Psy guy 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Nicely put. Now you just need to include some of this comment in the policy to strengthen it a little. Jonathan Webley 07:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

To better reflect the content of the policy, and also to minimize the risk that people will assume it's the same as Wikipedia's, I propose that we move this page to Wiktionary:Assume good faith or don't. —Ruakh_TALK 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, it's pretty watered down compared to the 'pedia version, isn't it? Still, it's helpful to document how much this community expects its memebers to assume good faith. One end of the spectrum would allow newbies to run rampant, while the other would allow administrators to shoo them away. Where between those extremes does this community fall? Rod (A. Smith) 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you're amused, but I'm not. As it stands, this document is a travesty. To take just one example, the first sentence my eyes alight on: "If reasonable, correct [the mistaken edit] without accusing the editor of lying"? So, sometimes it's simply unreasonable not to accuse an editor of lying? For minor mistakes, we can revert with "revert last: that's not true", but for major mistakes, we must revert with "revert last: don't believe his lies"? The main purpose of this document should be to remind experienced editors that we all have the same goal — a perfect Wiktionary — and that actions can be wrongheaded without being malicious. Instead, much of it is devoted to preemptively chastising newcomers for not having proved their worth yet, and to reassuring Connel that his mistreatment of other editors is justified by our having fewer sysops than Wikipedia. —Ruakh_TALK 21:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been driving this effort from the standpoint that we currently have no policy at all related to AGF, and that codifying an unobjectionable version is a good first step, keeping in mind that subsequent incremental alterations would remain possible. I think you imply preference for another approach above, perhaps to create two versions of the document (one for each side of this discussion) and then to have a three-way vote: (1) approve version A as policy, (2) approve version B as policy, and (3) reject both versions. Is that the approach you'd prefer, or can you suggest something better? Rod (A. Smith) 21:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you've been doing an admirable job of trying to forge a compromise, but I'm really not sure that there's a compromise position that both Connel and I would accept: I want this policy to force people to assume good faith or at least pretend to, while Connel wants this policy to force newbies to accept that our norms are divinely inspired and our administrators perfect but strict. (Obviously those aren't his exact words, but as far as I can tell, that really is the general idea.) I don't think there's a way the policy can do both. I'd rather have no policy at all, with most editors following Wikipedia's version and Connel doing his own thing, than a policy that seems to actually encourage what Connel does. (I'm greatly opposed to what Connel does; I'm sure he thinks it's the right thing, but he's dead wrong.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)