Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

Requested move 25 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia:Assume good faith → Wikipedia:Assume good intentions – As both @Czar and @WhatamIdoing have discussed above, the title (and some of the article's content) is phrased in a way which is unintuitive, leading users to apply it incorrectly or interpret it as meaning "assume blind faith". Some users mistakenly believe "good faith" means we should assume all users are performing due diligence in regard to reviewing sources when adding or removing information. As Czar has said, other users interpret it as "I do not have access to the source so I 'assume good faith'". I believe the title change and a correction in phrasing can go a long way in improving understanding. – Primium (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - I also believe there should be a section that clearly explains what WP:GF is not, but I'm unsure what the process is for making content changes to these pages. – Primium (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• The title is not the issue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 03:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Agree. @Primium's suggestion of a "what WP:GF is not" section looks like something that would actually make a difference. I encourage them to be bold and start it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 04:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Do you perhaps have some insight on what the issue might be? I feel the article is clear, so I assume the misunderstandings come from reading only the title. – Primium (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I think the issue this stems from, is the opposite of what you believe it to be. Changing policy over a disagreement with an editor of the interpretation of that policy isn't a good starting point. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 19:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  I read - or, perhaps, misread - ActivelyDisinterested's post as saying "changing the title is not the solution." I think the issue is as you described, people misunderstanding what "assume good faith" means. If we change the title then people will misunderstand what "Assume good intent" means. Better to have a "GF is not" section that editors can link to when other editors stray from the True Meaning of GF. - 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• I support this as potentially helpful. It may not solve all the confusion, but it should help a little bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. This has been AGF for a long, long time, AGF this and AGF that, we've heard it a thousand times or more, and now it should be changed to AGI? AGF is an integral part of many WP discussions and is linked at the five pillars. Must agree that the improvements that may be needed in the content do not mean the title needs to be altered. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  Is this driven by pragmatic considerations, or is it more of an appeal to tradition? I don't have strong opinions on the matter, just curious about the underlying reasons and looking for ways to improve misunderstandings. – Primium (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes and yes. It's practical because thousands of editors know this by its long-standing name, plus the project pagename reflects precisely what is meant, which is that editors, when prone to think an editor might be acting in bad faith, should always "assume good faith" at least until bad faith is without a doubt purveyed. I believe I've already covered the tradition aspect, as well as how any page content needs do not require a title alteration. Thank you for asking! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose ....a long, long time, per Paine Ellsworth (who lost his 'aine' after the mod[admin] thing). But yes, this is Wikipedia's familiar and long-term name for the term which, like IAR, is known beyond Wikipedia as one of the basic rules of trust and civility. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

To the Notorious Mr. Kryn: finally figured out the "aine" part. I don't know what "after the mod thing" means. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

My mistake Paine Ellsworth, I meant "admin", from the admin nom. Maybe it's just me, but I used to like seeing your full "Paine Ellsworth" autograph-reminiscent signature. I assume you changed it in good faith (and good intentions). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per above. - The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(always up for a conversation!)} 18:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral. 123957a (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. If we move it, that's gonna cause a lot of problems. Brennan Everette (🗣️ | ⏳) 13:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Assume good faith" is one of Wikipedia's five main pillars, and it has also always been referred to as "Assume good faith". Instead of solving confusion, this will multiply it (exponentiate it even, if you will). Why would it be changed because of a minor misunderstanding, if trying to solve it would create far more of it? "Good faith" also does not even sound bad. People with a decent understanding of English will understand what it means by this. What is this username? (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't believe this move would solve any issues (since all policies get misapplied sometimes), but moving it certainly would create new issues. VQuakr (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

. Oppose "Assume good faith" is a widely recognized and established term within the Wikipedia community. Changing the title to "Wikipedia:Assume good intentions" may not fully address the underlying issue of misinterpretation. Users may still apply the concept incorrectly, regardless of the specific wording used. Also, "good faith" is a legal and ethical term that carries a specific connotation of trust and belief in the sincerity of others' actions, which may not be fully captured by the term "good intentions."

Instead of renaming the page, efforts be made to clarify the existing content and provide additional guidance on the correct application of the principle of assuming good faith. This could include updating the article's content to provide examples and explanations that help users understand the intended meaning behind "assume good faith."Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 01:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per User:What is this username?. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Your argument is not valid. Ⓒ𝕝乇тᵉⓇ (α ɯσɾԃ?) 00:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be civil. How is my argument invalid? I am agreeing with User:What is this username? above, who provided a solid argument as to why this page should not be moved. What's invalid about that? JeffSpaceman (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking for your opinion on why I deleted my edit

I just found out that 294 characters for Copyright in South Korea were deleted from Literature document. I think the content is reliable enough because the source was accurately indicated. Bunsik (talk) 13:11, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that the explanation for the revert is not "copyright" but "unsourced." Take a look at WP:YANARS. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for input regarding assuming good faith in a talk page dispute

Improper venue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a discussion and dispute regarding addressing a talk page post by an ip that may or may not be trolling or a legitimate request. Your input at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails is requested; cordial, objective input is welcome. I have to point out that I am not forum shopping. If I don't publicize the discussion in a few different relevant venues I don't get much general uninvolved community input, which is desirable to provide additional insights instead of only localized discussion which may not even properly clarify things. Per WP:SEEKHELP, If your dispute is related to a certain content area, you can ask your question or publicize a related discussion on the talk page of relevant WikiProjects[a] or other pages. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC) You've got three admins giving you advice and you have been told you'll be blocked if you continue enabling trolls. So that's really the end of it. If you think all the admins are wrong you probably need to go to WP:AN. Bon courage (talk) 02:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) @Bon courage The end of it will be determined by the community not you, an involved editor who was using uncivil language. Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC) The community has spoken (I now count three admins and four non-admins). It's just you are forum shopping rather than WP:HEARing the message. My advice is to drop this and do something more gainful, as the road you are on is unlikely to lead to a good place. Bon courage (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) 1. The suggestion that a centralized discussion about project policy should take place on a user's talk page is just, bizarre. 2. This user has a history of waging pitched battles over the reversion of IP editors' troll-like comments, going back nearly 2 years, e.g. here. It may behoove the project to discuss an editing restriction once the current block expires. Zaathras (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) Quite apart from anything else, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page. So an editor raising a conduct grievance here is off-topic & disruptive. Suggest close. Bon courage (talk) 04:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2024

remove "WP:AFG" redirects here. For the Afghanistan WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Afghanistan. because WP:AFG no longer redirects to WP:AGF. 96.64.248.125 (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done — WP:AFG's target was erroneously changed and should still direct here. It's been fixed, now. Thank you for bringing it up. – Primium (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents many useful things from happening and causes some bad things to happen

WP:AGF is an oversimplification which prevents improvements in various areas. It presumes that there are only two possibilities:

1. A ideal editor, where the only influence on their editing is the objectives of Wikipedia
2. A "bad faith" editor, who does "bad faith" editing. Not specific on what that is, but it's clearly really bad.

In reality, most editors are somewhere in between. Their edits are somewhat influenced by biases, advocacies, politics and other things. Yet, whenever someone addresses this issue on policy in general, or in an individual cases where a preponderance of evidence says that they are exhibiting these (no big deal) "only human" traits, whoever brings it up is accused of violating WP:AGF and of making a severe accusation. They are supposed to assume the often-unrealistic incorrect ideal of #1 unless they are building an ANI type case (e.g. building a case with diffs) alleging a severe violation. And so contrary to it's ideals, wp:AGF is commonly weaponized or used contrary to it's goals. And useful discussions on the above "no big deal/only human" issues are prevented. IMO we should evolve this in a more realistic direction that acknowledges these realities. North8000 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the pushback "whenever someone addresses this issue" arises because the addressing is framed as "you are biased [or being political]" rather than "your edit does not provide a neutral point of view." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The gentle cases of expressing concern (e.g. about biased participation when such is evident) generally don't occur because of this guideline. Regarding when wp:AGF is actually invoked, IMO the most common reason is that there is already a tussle going on and WP:AGF is a handy weapon to gain advantage in that tussle. North8000 (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

A common version is accusations of left-wing bias. That particular version of assuming bad faith violates NPA by invoking an editor's political persuasion to undermine them and dismiss their editing. It is covered by some of the principles explained here: Talk:Donald Trump/Response to claims of bias (which is linked in Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus #61. It's a nasty application of poisoning the well. It's best kept away from article talk pages and reserved for user talk pages and, when justified, with diffs in reports on drama boards.

It also reveals an ignorance of sourcing requirements, and how, because there is a paucity of right-wing reliable sources for political topics, there will naturally be a seeming "overuse" of left-wing sources, simply because the right wing has become radicalized, moved far to the right, and thus abandoned the field of accurate coverage to the left-wing sources. Very few right-wing sources are left that are moderate and reliable.

It is sourcing, not editors, that create the left-wing bias in articles, and that bias is factual, not just left-wing opinion. This is related to the fact that "Reality has a well known liberal bias" (Stephen Colbert) and that "Facts Have a Well-Known Liberal Bias" (Paul Krugman). Right-wing editors who fight to RGW make attempts to "neutralize" such content so it's NPOV, but they thus reveal their lack of understanding of NPOV, neutrality, and factual reporting. They want to create a false balance.

Proving another editor has political POV is nonsensical. We all have them, and honesty and openness, unlike sneakily hiding one's POV, should not be punished. On the contrary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this came from. My main point was common weaponization of wp:AGF, and my "only human" comments/examples were not focused on any particular area including the one that is the topic of your post. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

As you point out, we're all biased about almost everything to some extent. That bias becomes "evident" when an edit fails the NPOV test. Expressing gentle concern about another editor's bias is likely to be counterproductive - shifting the discussion from whether an edit presents a NPOV to whether another editor is excessively biased (compare Wikipedia:No personal attacks). Precisely the sort of outcome AGF is designed to prevent.

As AGF (slightly edited) says "it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives biases, which might intensify resentments all around." - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)