Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)Reply

  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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

In that case typically I wouldn't wouldn't call it "pushback", I'd call it an effective tactic (= weaponization of this guideline) in the tussle that is happening at the article. North8000 (talk) 19:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am restoring this text that was removed in June. This text had been a part of this guideline page for years—since May 2005. It says: Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning. I actually think this is probably the most inspiring and convincing argument in the entire page. At least, when I was a new and younger editor, I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof of that. I am quite strongly opposed to removing this wording. It is definitely not "WP:KUDZU" (the rationale for removing it). Mz7 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy ping Butwhatdoiknow. Mz7 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Um, "Most people try to help the project, not hurt it" was not removed. And "Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning" is not synonymous with The existence of Wikipedia is proof of that. Shall we should change the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence? Or will you argue that old text is, by virtue of its age, perfect in every way? - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The current wording is fine. There are plenty of ways to convey the same message, which is that Wikipedia would not exist if most people were trying to hurt the project (in fact, in the edit right before yours, someone had just changed the wording). However, removing that second sentence (Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning) changes the meaning in a way that weakens the argument for this guideline. Mz7 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am suggesting changing the "doomed" sentence to your "proof" sentence. That would give the text the meaning you say it has. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what's wrong with the current form. The "doomed" phrasing is the one that's persisted for decades, and I see no compelling reason for us to rephrase it on a whim now. Mz7 (talk) 04:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mz7, you say "I remember being inspired by the idea it proposes: that most human beings are inclined to help each other, rather than hurt each other, and the existence of Wikipedia is proof of that" (italics in the original). The italicized text is your interpretation of "Otherwise, a project like Wikipedia would have been doomed from the beginning." I do not share your interpretation.

If you want to include the "proof" thought because it is inspiring then let's state that thought plainly. Regardless, let's not keep the unclear "doomed" text just because it has moss growing on it. - Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Presume good faith has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 6 § Presume good faith until a consensus is reached. Remsense ‥ 论 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply