Wikipedia:Assume good faith
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia guidelines |
---|
Content |
Article Inclusion |
Notability |
Classification |
Editing |
Discussion |
Behavior |
Style |
Manual of Style
See also policies |
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. We work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. If this were not true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. We as people want all to have the correct knowledge. Correcting others' work will help all of us as scholars and as a highly sophisticated society.
When you disagree with people, remember that they also believe they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to clearly explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating.
When others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be careful to remain civil yourself, and if necessary follow dispute resolution processes rather than edit warring or attacking other editors.
Contents |
[edit] About good faith
Assuming good faith is about intention, not action. Well-meaning persons make mistakes, and you should correct (but don't scold) them when they do. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.
[edit] Good faith and newcomers
Be patient with newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikipedia's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikipedia editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious. Please just be respectful and make your best efforts to help.
Take special care not to apply the principle of "Ignorantia juris non excusat" (Latin for: "ignorance of the law does not excuse"). This is incompatible with the guidelines of not biting newcomers and assuming good faith. Assuming good faith means, in part, knowing that people come in not understanding our policies and guidelines.
[edit] Demonstrate good faith
In addition to assuming good faith on the part of others, it can improve community spirit to assist others in assuming good faith on your part by demonstrating your own good faith. You can demonstrate good faith by articulating the honest motives behind actions and by making statements and taking actions that show willingness to compromise, sincere interest in improving Wikipedia, and other good faith motives. Demonstrating good faith is not required by this guideline, it is simply recommended as an aid to smooth and successful interaction with other editors.
[edit] Dealing with bad faith
Even if bad faith is evident, do not act uncivilly yourself in return, attack others, or lose your cool over it. It is not necessary to be a fanatic yourself. Even though it demands a lot of self control and patience, it is ultimately a lot easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly editing appropriately throughout.
Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct, if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence of it.
[edit] Accusing others of bad faith
Making unwarranted accusations of bad faith (as opposed to explanations of good faith) can be inflammatory, and is often unhelpful in a dispute. If bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is in fact based upon bad faith, it can also count as a form of personal attack, and in it, the user accusing such claim is not assuming good faith.
[edit] See also
[edit] Guidelines
[edit] Essays
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
- Wikipedia:Honesty
- Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
- Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
- Wikipedia:No vested contributors
- Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
- Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
- Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
- Wikipedia:Assume good wraith
- Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
- MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith (from MeatballWiki)
- Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade
- Wikipedia:Don't assume
[edit] Articles
|