Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Proposed extension

Can be found at Wikipedia:Assume high intelligence. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sounds reasonable; that needn't be on a separate page, just put it here :) (Radiant) 13:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed extension - wording

This is my proposed expansion of the policy:

Equally important as assuming good faith is to assume high intelligence. Although we may not know many of the other people who edit Wikipedia articles alongside us, it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability.

When examining other people's edits, it is important not only to check facts diligently to ensure we do not introduce factual inaccuracies into debates and articles, but also to remember that our fellow contributors sometimes make mistakes in spite of "knowing it, really", and that it is possible that they are aware of the mistakes they've made, but were not able to correct them before somebody else did. This can be due to any number of reasons, including slow connections, network failure, computer failure, inefficient peripheral devices, and sudden demands of our real life environments.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy? Guideline would be better

It is my opinion that this should never have been a policy, only a guideline. Let me explain why. The first point would be that what does and doesn't constitute good faith is hugely open to interpretation. Nowadays, most criticism of anything seems to firstly be countered with a reference to this policy, which invariably stalls constructive discussions. "You're not letting me get away with whatever changes I want to make, therefore you are assuming bad faith and I win because you violated policy."

Secondly, this policy is completely unenforceable. All it does is it makes people express whatever bad faith they have in more nefarious and less detectable ways. My objection to this policy is currently the deepest resentment I have to any part of Wikipedia, and I hope that this can be addressed, because apparently the disclaimer, This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary, is being ignored by the vast majority of people.

I come from an academic background where discussion is encouraged, and anything that concerns the matter at hand can be said in whatever mode most suits the speaker and will be answered in whatever mode most suits the respondent (with usually some consideration given to the need to speak in terms that the questioner can understand). In fact, it is understood as a challenge to always bring forward the heaviest criticism one can come up with. It has always been my understanding that Wikipedia aspires to this academic mode of discussion to resolve disputes, and that at the heart of Wikipedia, there is a belief that questions can be answered with a combination of intellect (aka common sense) and use of outside sources. However, a lot of people on Wikipedia are already having trouble distinguishing even between harsh criticism ("that's a stupid thing to do") and personal attacks ("you are an asshole"), so in combination with WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA (why are there two of these, by the way?), this policy is an absolute recipe for disaster. I would hope that we can come to some fruitful discourse on what can be done to resolve the current situation. My proposal is to relegate WP:AGF to a guideline, which in my opinion is really what it is, and ever can be. It's not enforceable as a policy because it's not yet possible (and God help us!) to screw with somebody's neurons to change some basic belief they hold about another person. Note that this is in contrast with other policies, which can be enforced by editing and deleting pages, and executing protections and blocks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it makes too much practical difference whether this is a guideline or a policy. Call it a principle, if you will. I do prefer "guideline" myself (and argued in favor of that designation somewhere in the murky history of the page...) because it will provide less expectation that there is some bright-line rule about when one is violating it, which there isn't and can't be. Doesn't matter. Yes, it is completely unenforceable; you cannot know someone's intentions. Which is why it exists. Assume good faith because you can't know otherwise -- and act against unacceptable behavior. (If someone's bad faith is not producing bad effects, we don't care. If it is, we do, however small they may be.)

I do not think the principle, as it is, is a recipe for disaster. I think it is necessary. It does not mean we must assume everyone's actual actions are good, just that in our approach to correcting them we err on the side of charitable interpretations. Some of the worst POV-pushers on the wiki are doing so in completely sincere, good-faith conviction that they are spreading The Truth. They still have to be banned.

As for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA—yes, NPA is a subset, but sometimes the more frequent violations need a page of their own to beat it into people's heads that yes, this really is part of it, stop it right now, that means you. A bit of redundancy to combat obnoxious ruleslawyering isn't too bad.

I do agree that genuine criticism is often but should not be mistaken for incivility—but I don't think this page itself is at all inconsistent with that. Oh, and anyone who waves this policy/guideline/principle/whatever around insincerely to try to get out of being called out on bad behavior should be severely beaten with a large, knotty cluestick. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 17:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, Samsara, you have a couple of other 'projects' up that I'm skeptical about, but this is the most sensible thing I've seen all day (maybe that means I haven't had a very sensible day). I usually think the spirit of this page would be better titled something like Don't make unwarranted assumptions about other users' motivations, but that just doesn't have the same ring to it. At any rate, even though it has no practical significance what tag sits at the top of the page, labeling a page dedicated to thoughts and motivations as 'policy' has unfortunate effects, particularly when combined with the fact that a small fraction of those who quote it have actually read it. Quoting this as 'policy' and pointing fingers at those 'violate' it just tends to derail discussion of content into discussion of what one person might or might not have been thinking about another person's thoughts. This is of course totally nonproductive, and undecidable in any case. Knocking some of these people on the head with the cluestick tends to produce more whining - well, now you're assuming that their accusation of assuming bad faith was made in bad faith, which isn't assuming good faith, is it? Opabinia regalis 02:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also support changing this from policy to guideline. WP:NPA and WP:VANDAL suffice enough to be policy, but however how often can obviously suspicious edits be considered as good faith and you be considered as having bad faith for seeing them as inappropriate (even the bolded sentence in one of the paragraphs mention that this should not stop one of doing so). So based on these circumstances calling this a guideline would be more accurate.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Centrx has gone ahead and make the change back to guideline with the reasoning that you can't force people to assume good faith. I agree and support the change. Thank you to user:samsara for bringing this up. pschemp | talk 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the downgrading of this needs more discussion than this. Abandoning an implicit assumption of good faith as policy implies that the community can now do what it wants, as long as they are civil in their actions. This no longer protects new users, as they rely on people assuming good faith. Although there is a small difference between policy and guideline, there must be a reason for someone to say this is not important enough to be promoted by all users, as opposed to "something some users think is a good idea". Unless there is a solid reason why new users should not have an implicit not-guilty tag attached to them I see no reason why the not-guilty assumption should be changed to guilty through this change. Ansell 22:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not abandoning it, it just changes the class of this page. You cannot impose opinions on editors ('You must assume good faith'), and Assume good faith is a subset of civility, which covers more cases and is more in line with the role of a "policy". —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Per well-reasoned arguments above, I would also support a change from policy to guideline. —Doug Bell ^talk 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Persian Poet Gal: You do not have to actually say that all edits are done in good faith. You just have to assume, and not be overly reactionary without other evidence. Part of the definition from Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." assumes that this policy is a hard and fast piece of advice for all editors supported by all editors. By downgrading this to guideline we can no longer use the current definition of vandalism, as policy should not rely on a guideline for its basic definition, as that would seem to show that not all users think the current definition of vandalism is okay.

Could someone tell me what the urgency behind changing this is? Is there a prolonged situation where someone does not like to assume good faith? Ansell 22:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this part of Wikipedia:Vandalism would force AGF to be in the class of policy. —Centrx→talk • 23:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point, but simply delink it from the definition in the same manner as Wikipedia:Verifiability does not link to the guideline Wikipedia:Reliable sources from the definition, but rather as a see also later on the page. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Besides vandalism/personal attacks then, even content related wise encouraging editors to practice good faith or assume good faith is more along the lines of a strong recommandation, enforcing this as a policy is rather too official a stamp in my opinion.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see this as such a big deal either way, but I concur with Centrx's reasoning. Note by the way that some links to this page call it policy; that may need a bit of fixing. (Radiant) 13:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Specifics

I think this is a great guideline in theory - without it, the level of bickering and nastiness even among good contributors would really be through the roof.

However. This is the first time I've ever looked at this actual page and I am a bit surprised at how unfocused and rambling it is. "Assume high intelligence?" And the whole bit about giving people the benefit of the doubt in case they made a bad edit but couldnt fix it because their connection dropped? It's very fuzzy. It seems to me that this can be pruned substantially and still have the same thrust. Thoughts? --Dmz5 22:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's because the AHI passage was recently added. If it proves uncontroversial, it could be more integrated with the rest of the text. The point is hugely important, however - some people are more offended if you imply they are stupid by careless use of common good faith phrases, than if you metaphorically kick them hard for doing something that you disagree with. Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The addition still needs the kinks worked about but I still agree with Samsara. The point it illustrates is a key component to being civil in editing disputes on Wikipedia. Just give it time, I'm sure with more rewording as you proprosed, the passage will become more defined in context.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Not calling people stupid is fine (and belongs at WP:CIVIL if not already obvious there), but that is different from actually supposing that someone has high intelligence. One of the reasons for assuming good faith is exactly because the other person may very well be mistaken, or not understand Wikipedia, or simply be stupid but good-hearted. That is not the same as assuming something that is plainly false in many cases, or making wild assumptions about the "high cognitive ability" of an editor who is on Wikipedia because they have a "curiosity about life". This is nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. Read intellectual giftedness, which, btw, is well referenced. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say in there that Wikipedia editors must be intellectually gifted? —Centrx→talk • 00:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're twisting things, and you know it. I never made the claim you are asking me to justify. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not twisting anything; you may have misunderstood what I was referring to as nonsense. What makes no sense is that we could make the assumption that someone is editing Wikipedia because of a natural curiosity about life deriving from high cognitive ability. —Centrx→talk • 00:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you've convincingly shown that the proposal is damaging. in your ruthless rationality, you are neglecting the positive effects on self-image that such wording entails. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note Wikipedia talk:Assume high intelligence. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read this as well as #Proposed extension and #Proposed extension - wording. Is there discussion about this anywhere else? —Centrx→talk • 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the unilateral change by Samsara back to the longstanding AGF policy. A consensus would be required to apply a change as significant as "assuming high intelligence", because the policy is intended to speak to assuptions about other persons' intent, not about other persons' aptitude, intelligence or skill. ... Kenosis 00:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't unilateral. Obviously you haven't read the talk page. Or the definition of unilateral. Radiant, me, Samsara and Persian Poet Gal all seem to think it has merit. Discuss rather than edit war. pschemp | talk 00:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not how I read it. I see two sections above from November about "Proposed extension" of the policy to include this new idea of "assume high intelligence", expressing only Samsara's preference. As of now, however, plainly it is under actual discussion. ... Kenosis 02:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) OK, I do see the last week's discussion in this section now. Problem is, this proposed addition to a longstanding WP guideline attempts to change the policy to include assumptions of factors other than "intent" of the other person, specifically the assumption of the others' intent to help WP, not hurt it. Now what's being proposed is to move the assumption into areas that have more to do with competence of the other person than they do with their intent or "faith". ... Kenosis 02:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiant liked it too. As of now, you are edit warring rather than discussing. pschemp | talk 02:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That appears true at this point. Sorry. So, let's go ahead and resolve this issue on the merits. This policy guideline is too important and fundamental to the human intercourse on WP. It was never, until now, intended to speak to competence, but instead has always been meant to speak to assumption of intent or "faith". ... Kenosis 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's understandable that not all Wikipedia editors can appreciate the finer points of policy. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again- at minimum there seems to be little consensus for its presence. There seem to also be a variety of problems with the paragraph in question: first, it confuses ignorance and stupidity (or if you prefer, intelligence and education). Second, very often in order to AGF one must assume that the person in question is ignorant about a matter in question or is an idiot. If we need to be not condescending when replying to people that is a matter for WP:CIVIL, not a matter for AGF. JoshuaZ 02:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, you reverted at 2:11, without discussing first, and only posted this 11 minutes later. That's not using the talk page. pschemp | talk 02:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's making an edit and forgetting to click the save page button on the window. In any event, whether or not I used the talk page appropriately isn't relevant to whether or not we should have this paragraph in the article. JoshuaZ 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. How can you defend assuming that people are idiots within the larger context of creating a good atmosphere on Wikipedia, which is the motivation for AGF? Tell me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The point of the policy guideline, originally at least, was to circumvent judgments about others in favor of an assumption of good faith. Assumptions about competence were never meant to be part of the equation in my observation of it. ... Kenosis 02:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Assuming high intelligence seems a little too much, firing up a computer and editing Wikipedia productively does not necessarily require high intelligence. How about just "assume intelligence"? That would have the same affect of hopefully reducing the number of accusations of "stupidity", "idiocy", etc that are tossed around. Assuming some level of intelligence does seem like a natural extension of the guideline. --Bobblehead 02:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And so the proposed wording would be what exactly? We still have the issue of this paragraph confusing intelligence and education. JoshuaZ 02:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What if a person does not consider himself intelligent? Are we to continue to assume high intelligence if a person declares that he has some medically diagnosed retardation? With good-faith at least, we can confidently say that bad-faith contributors are not welcome; non-intelligent people are. —Centrx→talk • 03:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You're making me laugh. I hope that was your intention. :) We're not prohibiting common sense yet, and I hope you're never going to side with anyone who will. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that there are welcome contributors who do not have high intelligence. With good-faith at least, either someone is acting in good-faith at least generally, or they should not be allowed to continue that way on Wikipedia. After we do not "continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary", the user gets a warning to stop. After we do not continue to assume high intelligence in the presence of evidence to the contrary, nothing whatsoever changes; we would still be giving the exact same answers to a question as before, we would still be making the exact same edits to that person's revisions as before. "you may already be aware of this" applies to the dumbest of the dumb as well as the smartest of the smart, and it is in either case needless verbiage. —Centrx→talk • 04:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Your "needless verbiage" is otherwise known as "common courtesy". There is always time for that. Samsara (talk • contribs) 04:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, even supposing that it is the most necessary verbiage of all, it would apply whether we assume high intelligence or not. —Centrx→talk • 04:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested getting rid of the "high" portion of "assume high intelligence" and making it "assume intelligence". Assuming high intelligence may give Wikipedia the appearance of snobbishness or elitism and discourage people from editing here. It may also decrease the amount of tolerance someone has for honest mistakes. However, by assuming that they have modicum of intelligence it extends AGF beyond the person's intentions and extends that good faith to the content of their edits, while leaving room for mistakes. I've noticed on certain pages that even if editors are assuming good faith about the actions of the other editors, they are discrediting the edits because of a lack of respect for the content they are adding. Too often content is removed because it is "nonsense", "useless", etc. but there is a lack of explanation beyond those statements in the edit summaries or if there is an explanation, it is done in a manner that disrespects the content and that disrespect tends to starts the discussion of the content off on the wrong foot. By assuming the other editors have some intelligence the content discussion is done in a more intellectual manner, which tends to make the discussion less personal and more about finding out why the content should be in the article or not. --Bobblehead 08:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Some people are not "intelligent" either. For the same reason that "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.", it would not require editors to continue assuming intelligence. If someone adds nonsense—and after all any intelligent person may be sleepy or accidentally add nonsense—it is still nonsense. —Centrx→talk • 09:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

(outdent)I'm assuming you have a point? Much like an editor would not be required to assume good faith on someone's actions in the presence of evidence to the contrary, that editor also would not be required to assume intelligence in the presence of evidence to the contrary. --Bobblehead 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An assumption of good-faith is warranted for anyone who is not trolling or vandalizing, etc., that is anyone we should be editing with or having a conversation with in the first place. Evidence that a person is not acting in good faith ends with the user in question being warned or blocked. Evidence that a person is not acting with intelligence means...we don't say "you may already be aware of this" anymore? or no change in behavior at all with regard to the user? —Centrx→talk • 10:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How about using something along the lines of "informed edits" instead of intelligence? I agree in theory, but "high intelligence" or even "intelligence" makes this seem silly to me. —bbatsell ¿? 05:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for protection

Seriously, revert waring on the Assume Good Faith guideline? I've submitted a full protection request for this guideline. Now break off into teams Tiger teams and discuss a solution to the revert war. :P --Bobblehead 02:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've had my three, so I'm out of the game for now anyway. Far more important to resolve this very importance change of the longstanding understanding of what AGF is intended to mean. This digression into an assumption of competence or intelligence is a wide divergence from the past range of assumptions about WP:AGF in my observation. ... Kenosis 02:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR is not a blanket right to edit war for 3 reverts. I'm dismayed you don't understand this. "Use common sense; do not participate in an edit war. Rather than exceeding the three-revert limit, discuss the matter with other editors." pschemp | talk 02:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I already explained myself in the section above. Now I suggest let's move on, please, back to the real issue, which is that without a clear new consensus, the policy guideline has been changed to include an assumption of competence on the part of WP users. That was never intended to be part of the principle until now. As to the matter of using three revs today, on a matter this important I'm entitled to my 3, and if you argue differently, sue me or file an RFC. My preference would be to move right onto the substantive discussion, and consensus the issue among the many editors who may have missed out on this little discussion here. I trust we will now choose to move to the substantive issue at hand. ... Kenosis 02:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad you've realised that we're not rearranging the chairs on the deck. Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Teams? I hope you are kidding. Once any discussion breaks off into opposing factions, you'll have lost all hope of reaching a consensus. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, bad choice of words.;)--Bobblehead 02:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me Kenosis was intelligently using his allotted three reverts in good faith. As for common sense, seems to me common sense would indicate that since the average American has an IQ between 95 and 110 (just like the rest of the world), assuming "high intelligence" (IQ 130 or higher?) would be to live in a fantasy world. Given that Wikipedia has no entrance exam and is open to anyone with access to a computer and the ability to string letters together to form words and sentences assuming that only the top 3% of the populace contribute to Wiki would be an ableptic excercise.

Now, if we remove the word "high", what does that buy us? Nothing really, unless intelligence is defined and quantified, and that's likely not someplace we really want to go. •Jim62sch• 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jimsch, would you please read the discussion in its entirety? We have already agreed to drop the word higher. Thanks for keeping up with things. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RE "We have already agreed to drop the word higher." WHO IS "WE"? This is a lobbying effort by Samsara to change the parameters of WP:AGF. It has met with substantially more disapproval than approval, when the opposite would be required to justly implement it. And at least one user has pointed out that a different procedure would be needed (announcing the intentions to the larger community and getting broader feedback on the proposal) in order to properly implement such a change . AGF has nothing to do with presumed intelligence or any other kind of competence--period. It has only to do with assuming good intentions. ... Kenosis 04:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss

I have protected the page to end the revert war currently taking place. Parties are encouraged to discuss here and then request unprotection once an agreement has been reached. RFC, Mediation, or Arbitration may be of use. Administrators are reminded not to edit protected pages in order to continue an edit war. Essjay (Talk) 02:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Although we may not know many of the other people who edit Wikipedia articles alongside us, it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability." - I seriously laughed out loud on this. Everyone who edits should be assumed to be a genius? --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly seem to redefine genius. •Jim62sch• 11:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand. Is "high" meaning "normal" or "above-normal" in this context? EDIT: In my opinion, the best solution is to simply say "Assume your fellow contributors are capable of understanding." That might sound a little condencending but I don't know what other way to put it. --Wooty Woot? contribs 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I doubt anyone was trolling. The simple bell curve regarding distribution of intelligence would indicate that an assumption of high intelligence is hardly an intelligent assumption. •Jim62sch• 10:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

a) this point has already been addressed (were it not for the protection), b) it is absolutely minor. Apparently, in all your zeal to destructively criticise (because that is oh so cool and makes you look oh so much cleverer than anybody else), you have completely overlooked what this amendment is trying to achieve, and in the process, utterly lost my respect. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, what? --Wooty Woot? contribs 04:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Assume high intelligence?

I certainly would not assume, merely on the basis of edits or commentary, that someone is lacking in in intelligence, but I think to assume high intelligence as in exceptional human intelligence overstates the case, and may be unduely optimistic. And to a certain degree it might be argued that intelligence should be less of an issue than the ability to read and write and to think critically and dispassionately and the quality of being informed as to the facts pertaining to the subject of an article. Possibly, this phrase might be better rendered assume a reasonable degree of intelligence or other moderate words to this effect. Cryptonymius 15:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you ask an artificial intelligence or SETI resercher, then all humans are intelligent, even those whom medics would describe as mentally limited, so where does that leave us? Different people, different definitions. If you had read the talk page, you would have realised that the change you are suggesting has already been accepted but has not been implemented due to the page being protected from editing. So I suppose you are rather proving your case. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a really poor addition. Assuming good faith is fine, because it's generally true. But the average contribution does not come from some super human, but just average people who want to help. "Assume high intelligence" is demeaning, elitist, unhelpful and just wrong. It also doesn't have anything to do with AGF. Can we please pull it? Stevage 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Demeaning? If I call you clever that is demeaning??? Is there some secret stupid pride movement that I have been missing all my life? Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Different people, different definitions. Some folks will read that phrase "assume high intelligence" as impugning their own intelligence, perhaps by suggesting that only the truely exceptional should edit and therefore compelling them to "masquerade" here as an intellectual. Cryptonymius 16:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, if this had been written as do not assume the other person is stupid merely for disagreeing with you I would have probably scanned by it without blinking an eye, though I suppose this is covered in etiquette or something, somewhere else. (And as for not reading the talk page...just trying to get a sense for what's going on around here, and how things ought to be done, becomes a bit daunting at times, and perhaps leads one occasionally to jumping right and beginning to blather...in hopes of making sense to someone...somewhere...out...there... ) Cryptonymius 07:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed addition of "assume high intelligence"

Here is a brief summary of the problems I see with this newly added addendum to WP:AGF, recently advocated by User:Samsara, which currently reads as follows:

"Equally important as assuming good faith is to assume high intelligence. Although we may not know many of the other people who edit Wikipedia articles alongside us, it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability. Therefore, when you approach people, a typical phrase you may wish to use is, "you may already be aware of this, but [...]"."

• (1)This newly inserted attempt to include a supplementary policy guideline for WP users to "assume high intelligence" has absolutely nothing legitimately to do with assuming "good faith". Good faith has to do with assumptions of others’ intentions, not about their competence. WP:AGF places upon us an expectation to assume good faith intent to help the Wikipedia project, and to continue to assume good faith unless and until there is substantial evidence of motives not consistent with good faith that can be clearly demonstrated to other participating editors. The issue in assuming good faith is not whether someone else is assumed to be smart or not-so-smart, but rather has only to do with assuming that others’ intentions are good and not malicious. To the extent that we follow the policy guideline, assuming good faith guides us to avoid making hasty negative assumptions about others' intent, particularly when we get into disagreements about article content or manner of personal interaction. And WP:AGF is no way whatsoever anticipates that we need make any standardized judgments about others' cognitive abilities or skills in order to support our assumptions of good faith. To the contrary, making assumptions about others' level of intelligence would appear to increase the likelihood of arriving at a hasty judgment in the context of disagreement, to the effect that someone else, assumed to be very intelligent, obviously must be being obtuse or fraudulent.
• (2)Worse, this debate in the talk section(s) just above has gotten lost around the periphery of the issue and has wandered into whether one should assume "high intelligence", or merely "intelligence" or some other level of innate ability, when in fact assuming good faith has absolutely nothing to do with assumptions about others' innate ability or any other speculative assessment of other users' competence.
• (3)Irrespective of whether such a concept may be legitimately attached to assumptions of good faith, any official policy guideline insisting that users assume that other users have a pre-specified competence level of any kind is completely opposed to the foundational concepts of Wikipedia, which make no demands for a given level of competence in order to participate in WP. If the agenda here is to get Wikipedia users to assume competence of some particular kind, there should be a completely separate proposal arguing for a new project-page guideline specifying what those assumptions should be (e.g. WP:Assume high intelligence).
• (4)The proposed addition of "assume high intelligence" to the WP:Assume good faith policy guideline also makes several additional flawed assumptions.

A) The assertion that "to assume good intelligence" is "equally important as assuming good faith" is an unconsensused judgment formulated by User:Samsara, and not a reflection of consensused Wiki-wide priorities. Even assuming that an expectation for WP users to hold assumptions about others' intelligence is legitimate at all, on any project page, the issue of its relative importance has not been adequately discussed among WP users.

B) the assertion concerning other WP users that "...it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability" is completely unfounded and speculative. It's a nice compliment, but completely unverified and probably unverifiable. Moreover, it quite arguably is contrary to many editors' personal experiences with other editors across the wiki.

C)The statement "[t]herefore, when you approach people, a typical phrase you may wish to use is, "you may already be aware of this, but [...]" is a nice advisory that appears quite relevant to WP:CIV, but is a non sequitur and does not properly follow either from AGF or from any other assumptions such as about intelligence.

In sum, any principle, expectation, demand, or guideline to assume high intelligence is not properly a part of WP:AGF, and quite arguably should not be a part of any WP project page. ... Kenosis 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, because as Centrx has amply demonstrated, if somebody does something that looks stupid to you, most people would either assume that the person is being evil or stupid. AGF advises against believing people to be leaving, so very obviously, there is a glaring omission of advising against believing people to be stupid, which, as I have said before, and some have agreed with (Pschemp and Persian Poet Gal), can be just as offensive. AGF is about creating a good atmosphere, not about giving people a guideline that suggests by omission that people who do perceived wrong are stupid. Read this version, which makes everything perfectly clear. Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

RE "[I]f somebody does something that looks stupid to you ... would either assume that the person is being evil or stupid" ??? If somebody does something stupid where? On the Wikipedia talk pages or in the articles? Stupid to whom? No one's required to make such judgments as are suggested by Samsara's choice between "evil or stupid", unless a situation has gotten to the point where it's headed towards, or already in, a request for mediation, RFC or RFA. And, "evil" is not anywhere near specific enough, and arguably should never be a permissible judgment about another participant in Wikipedia. And in general, people do not do things in Wikipedia, but instead say things, question things, assert things, wonder about things, etc. And, an action, where someone does something such as deletes a whole section or article, inserts random characters or other such guff, etc. may call for a reasoned judgment whether it's likely accidental. If someone does something that doesn't appear likely to be random or accidental, such as inserting in an article the words "Professor X sucks", we're called to make a judgment whether it's a mistake (possibly unfamiliar, inexperienced, perhaps clumsy, or even, as Samsara says, stupid) or whether it's vandalism (malicious), and never whether it's "evil". Other situations, such as suspected spamming, may call for judgments whether it's merely enthusiasm about a preferred website or POV, or whether it has commercial motivations or other self-serving motives. Yet other situations may call for other judgments such as whether a mass copyedit of an article is doing something too broad or too agressive at one time. When people do things such as those I just mentioned, the issue is not, ever, a simple choice between whether the other editor is being "evil or stupid", as Samsara says above. And it's not necessarily a required choice between "stupid" and "not in good faith" either.

The vast majority of circumstances, however, have to do not with what others' do but with what users' say, assert, question, include in an article, state on the talk page, etc. The vast majority of instances can, and should, be dealt with on the basis of the particular conceptual or substantive or procedural issues at hand, be they related to an article's content or to points being discussed on a talk page. In no way does this process require anyone to make a judgment about others' innate abilities in order to make a personal decision whether another user deserves to be assumed to be participating in good faith. The policy guideline WP:AGF directs us to AGF-- period-- unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary which can be articulated and demonstrated to other editors. And even if, in the context of arguing to fellow WP users your grounds upon which you may have ceased to assume good faith on the part of someone else, the possible question comes up as to whether things said or done by that editor are best interpreted as either incompetent or malicious, such a question would be only one of an extremely large number of possibilities and questions that could potentially be involved in the analysis.

Making speculative judgments about others' innate abilities, such as to "assume high intelligence", is completely irrelevant to assuming good faith. This proposal plainly did not have consunsus to begin with, and plainly has substantial opposition on a number or grounds by at least six or seven users thus far, with only marginal support by about three users if I'm counting the views correctly. The paragraph about "assume high intelligence" should be removed promptly upon unlocking of the project page, and not be replaced unless and until there is a clear consensus for its inclusion in the project page. ... Kenosis 16:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Concur with Kenosis here - pardon me, but it is idiotic to assume high intelligence, as intelligence varies enormously, and most importantly, assuming intelligence is actually contrary to AGF: someone might be a little slow, which can look malicious, but actually be a good-faith effort on their part. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Proper procedure

Regardless of where it belongs, it is a terrible break with WP procedure to introduce a change like this without talking to a larger community, and without having come up with a coherent and defensible explanation of what it means and what the implications and likely side effects are. This is WP policy, whether we call it a guideline or a policy, and it's not the place to be throwing neat ideas in randomly. Please, proponents, once the page is unlocked, yank this in toto and prepare an essay explaining what you mean and why it should be part of WP policy, and where you think it should go, and then float the essay at the Village Pump and wikien-l for feedback. Georgewilliamherbert 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I found no support for my case when I stated it at first, so I figured people who supported this didn't actually exist. Good to hear :) The idea that other pages should be changed to not refer to this as policy may have already been implemented BTW! Ansell 09:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The explanation exists. See previous changes by me. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I will assume good faith, but I am afraid that your proposal is hopelessly muddled and does not have a coherent rationale. Until you can provide that, in a single clear document somewhere, this is horribly premature. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Recapping the discussion above

Proposed extension: Equally important as assuming good faith is to assume high intelligence. Although we may not know many of the other people who edit Wikipedia articles alongside us, it is likely that they have a curiosity about life that derives from high cognitive ability. Therefore, when you approach people, a typical phrase you may wish to use is, "you may already be aware of this, but [...]".
When examining other people's edits, it is important not only to check facts diligently to ensure we do not introduce factual inaccuracies into debates and articles, but also to remember that our fellow contributors sometimes make mistakes in spite of "knowing it, really", and that it is possible that they are aware of the mistakes they've made, but were not able to correct them before somebody else did. This can be due to any number of reasons, including slow connections, network failure, computer failure, inefficient peripheral devices, and sudden demands of our real life environments.

Existing rejoinder: Assuming good faith is about intentions, not actions. Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold. There will be people on Wikipedia with whom you disagree. Even if they're wrong, that doesn't mean they're trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That doesn't mean they're 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.

---

The bits that are clearly rejected by the current talk page participants are stricken out above, the bits that have been tentativly rejected are underlined. We're pretty much left with an extention of the existing third paragraph, copied below the proposed extension. I think that the action is over here, that the page can be unprotected and that we can agree that "Equally important as assuming good faith is to assume intelligence" has no consensus at this time. Anyone demure?
brenneman 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is assuming intelligence a) important; b) equally important; c) appropriate for this guideline? What is the purpose of this phrase when approaching people? —Centrx→talk • 07:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the converted. I was trying to cover off what had already been clearly rejected. - brenneman 10:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence implies that you are going to discuss with someone in a rational manner. If you assume that you are better than someone you are not as likely to discuss things as rationally. it is equally important as it is more than just assuming someone made an edit without wanting to harm either the encyclopedia or their fellow editors. It adds IMO an element of respect above a simple initial good faith condition.

Ignoring the semantic difference between guideline and policy for the moment, it is important as a way of improving the applicability of the whole idea. Although there are those who think that this idea is outdated and somewhat less than what they expect of a policy (whatever that is), the encyclopedia was not created with the goal to gain a fellowship of editors to lord their status over others. Heck, you could say the goal was to humbly respect the efforts of others and get a true representation of human knowledge. A simple civil society does not contain any elements of humility. You can rip an editor to shreds without violating either "civility" or "no personal attacks". The applicability of this addition, although it may not have been in the original, is significant in this respect I think. Ansell 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

This is also a completely different concept than AGF's original intent, and deserves to stand (or fall) on its own as a separate policy proposal. It's just not right to go around tacking other possible but not consensus good ideas onto major WP policy documents. Georgewilliamherbert 10:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the proposed material is irrelevant to WP:AGF-- completely irrelevant. Even "assume reasonable intelligence" or some such approach would be irrelevant. Even a statement such as "assume rationality" quickly finds numerous exceptions where an edit or a discussion is neither intelligent nor rational, but we're still called to assume good faith unless there's clearly demonstrable evidence to the contrary. However, since the project page already has a paragraph which serves as a brief 'advice column', I would support the inclusion of an additional statement or two about how one might wish to communicate the assumption of good faith. The example of saying "you may already be aware of this, but [...]" is one of many that could be used as examples of how to communicate one's assumption of good faith (even though this is more in the realm of WP:CIV). Possibly even a note of advice about attempting to demonstrate some degree of patience with other users might conceivably help editors' demonstrate their assumption of good faith.

But any dictum for assuming intelligence, aptitude, competence, or any other type of ability, experience or skill, is not among the necessary conditions for assuming good faith, and should be rejected with respect to this project page. ... Kenosis 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that assuming competence is important, and the idea is very similiar to assuming good faith. But, it may is better stated somewhere else. I started User:Friday/Competence not long ago- if this idea has legs maybe it should become Wikipedia:Assume competence and be a seperate-but-related guideline to this one. Friday (talk) 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't belong on this page. Also, competence is in some ways worse than intelligence because there are numerous people on Wikipedia who are clearly not experienced at Wikipedia or competent at editing properly, even to make links or section headers. —Centrx→talk • 06:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the "high intelligence" section

It clearly doesn't have consensus, and at the very least is controversial enough to warrant discussion on the talk page *before* including it in the policy/guideline. Can an admin please remove it pending further discussion here? Thanks. Stevage 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is reasonable; I've removed that section, as it clearly does not have consensus. While I suspect the aim was to provide a nice way of adding an asterisk to the basic policy that says "and don't assume everyone is a blithering idiot, either", the wording left something to be desired.

It's worth point out again that this material was originally at Wikipedia:Assume high intelligence, and merged here per suggestions on that talk page. Should something to this effect be implemented, there evidently is no consensus on whether to include it here or create a separate page to house the idea. Opabinia regalis 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

er, guideline?

Hasn't Assume Good Faith been one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies for years? If we make it a guideline, people won't treat it as if it were so important. -- Chris is me 14:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

No, this page was first tagged as a "policy" in May 2006, [1]. It is more in the nature of a guideline than a policy; it is an extrapolation of Wikipedia:Civility, which supersedes it. —Centrx→talk • 21:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

See also discussion above; the distinction is largely semantic, but making a state of mind a policy is unenforceable and therefore essentially useless. If people were only "assuming good faith" because this page had a "policy" tag at the top of it, they're doing it wrong anyway. Opabinia regalis 07:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think that AGF is an essential Wikipedian concept that every editor needs to follow. If it's a guideline, it's less important, but AGF is fundamental. -- Chris is me 15:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, anyone whose behavior changes as a function of the tag at the top of this article is an Olympic medalist in Missing the Point. Opabinia regalis 07:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am very much with Chris on this one and his thread title actually proves the point for me. The "er" device in prose is more often than not evidence of an inability to express oneself clearly in the written word. It is one thing to say "er" in the spoken word when pausing for thought, quite another to use it in writing. This is quite aside from sarcasm being the lowest form of wit. However, the whole point is that one should, indeed must, assume good faith in his posting, however he expresses himself. I am completey with him on this one. Assume good faith has to be a fundamental policy of Wikipedia and not simply a "guide". Informed Owl (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)Informed Owl

Oppose the change, and agree with Centrx and Opabinia regalis. Assumptions made of anyone or anything is to subjective to be anything more than a guideline. --Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are only 42 policies, while there are hundreds of guidelines. Given the relative numbers, and the general stability of policies, I suggest that changing a page from a guideline to a policy not be treated casually; at minimum, notification of the planned change belongs on this page before the change occurs, so there can be discussion.

In this case, the page has been reverted back to a guideline, something with which I personally agree. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There are 42 policies and 25 guidelines. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

What to do when someone fails to "AGF"

I've noticed a lot of interactions here in which one editor throws an AGF link at another as part of a response to some point in a dispute. The effect of this is often an escalation of ill will, and a further wandering from the constructive point at hand, because they end up arguing over whether one person was assuming good faith, and whether the other was assuming the assumption of good faith...

I would suggest, and maybe someone can figure out a way to include this in the guideline, that the correct response to a "failure to AGF" is not to accuse them of failing to AGF, but to explain your intentions, and show that you're working for the best of Wikipedia be refocusing the discussion on that, and not on who may have violated which civility-related policy.

Opinions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this suggestion by GTBacchus is simply brilliant. I also believe that AGF should be a Policy, not a guideline. Shortcomings of the policy should be addressed by making the policy better, not by making it something that those who don't like it can just opt out of. GTBacchus's suggestion goes a long way toward achieving that end. Well done! Jerry lavoie 20:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

That a page is tagged as a guideline is not because of "shortcomings", it indicates how the page fits into the policy framework. The fundamental notion of "assuming good faith" is vaguer than policies are and has exceptions. It would not make sense to assume good faith if someone is rapidly posting obscene pictures throughout Wikipedia, but the block message can indeed still be WP:CIVIL. —Centrx→talk • 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag. —Centrx→talk • 08:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I find that to be vulgar, and I don't see how it enhances this discussion. I suggest deleting it. Jerry lavoie 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand what it is in reference to. People often tell others to "not be a m:dick" as though referring to some sort of "official" essay excuses incivility, much in the same way that people accuse others of not assuming good faith by throwing in a link to WP:AGF, which is itself not assuming good faith. —Centrx→talk • 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Cyde's page makes a certain point, but it's basically useless to cite in a setting where there's any attempt being made towards tact or diplomacy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the point. If someone calls someone a m:dick, they are just covering up their incivility by trying to make it an "official" reference. I'm not saying it should be included on this page anyway. —Centrx→talk • 14:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to make sure I understand GTBacchus' suggestion. Tom and Mary are editing back and forth. At some point Tom puts, "reverted per (insert policy)" or "please refer to (insert guideline)". Instead Tom should put "please refer to (policy)...where it says 'blah, blah, blah'" so that everyone (Mary included) can understand what Tom believes is the relevant portion of the quoted page. Often there are conflicting phrases/clauses on the same page or based on a particular interpretation a conflicting policy, but nothing productive can occur with just the link. Mary will read the link, find the part that supports her and ask Tom for more detail...which generally is ignored. I would love to see people quoting the policy with the link so we all know what the heck the person is actually referring to. -- Tony of Race to the Right 20:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)