Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Uncle G (talk | contribs) at 12:01, 10 October 2005 (→Good Faith as to notability). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Uncle G in topic Good Faith as to notability

Voting

Moved to Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Vote

Why I am against this policy

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I left the following comment on the voting page:

I'm echoing Ta bu shi da yu's criticism, except I am rather pessimistic about the abusability of this rather Panglossian rule. For an example, if a series of POV edits appear on David Irving, eulogising his skills as a historian and putting down his court defeats as part of the global left-wing conspiracy, I am not going to assume good faith, and I will not appreciate well-meant Wikipedia rules directing me to do so, particularly if, say, the edits are from an IP address listed on various anti-fascist blacklists. Be civil might be the name of a constructive policy, but policies telling me how to think are not constructive. ---- Charles Stewart 14:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Trust, but verify." (Old Russian saying, via Ronald Reagan.) "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." "Treat people as you would wish to be treated." -Willmcw 00:27, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I find it helps to think of the policy as a nicer way of phrasing "never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." Remember that at least trolls know they're trolls; the dedicated crank doesn't understand they're a crank.

Also, "assume good faith" doesn't mean "to the point of self-imposed idiocy" - David Gerard 22:04, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nor, one hopes, does it mean "assume you're a troll" either. Dr Zen 02:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's supposed to be a margin of reasonable doubt. Remember that we're all communicating with plain-text, and even bold and italics don't quite help convey what you're trying to say or do. Therefore you have to choose the "wrong" side with any misunderstanding. If the user was not intending it like that after all you won't feel badly for accusing them, and if their wrongdoing escalates you can stop being so forgiving and sort out a block or ban. Either way, the truth soon surfaces. And I'd say many cases of "questionable good faith" are just a user being overly bold or overlooking a rule or two, a case of recklessness rather than malevolence. Master Thief Garrett 15:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)Reply

12.73.201.107's recent edits

This User seems to have edited with an agenda in mind. I suggest someone else rewrite their addition rather than simply reverting it. Master Thief GarrettTalk 02:12, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Proposal on Stalking

I would like to propose that a section be added to this guideline to resolve a recurring problem on Wikipedia and in light of recent precedents on the subject. This section should address the issue of editor "stalking" on wikipedia, applying to cases where a particular editor chooses to intentionally follow another editor around wikipedia in a harassing manner. Behavior of this type was initiated the infamous User:The Recycling Troll case in March 2005 [1] and was ultimately stated as the reason to hardban this user by Jimbo Wales, who resolved the case.[2] According to Wales "the Recycling Troll was making a pest of himself by harassing RickK," [3] who he was following around Wikipedia with the purpose of making edits - including mostly minor ones - to work completed by RickK. During the course of this dispute it was concluded that stalking of this type constituted "disruptive behavior" even when most of the stalker's edits were minor and inconsequential, and that it breached the good faith assumption by singling out an editor and subjecting his edits to harassment. Given this notable precedent, a guideline discouraging stalking seems to be appropriate. I am further suggesting this guideline from personal experience, having been the target of another editor's stalking behavior myself during the past few months. I believe that the drafting of a guideline would help to resolve this and other cases of stalking on wikipedia that have the adverse effects of disrupting the encyclopedia, subjecting victimized editors to undue harassment, and fostering an unfriendly and hostile environment. Thank you for your consideration. - Rangerdude 5 July 2005 19:31 (UTC)

ADDED: Please note that this proposal is for an additional Wikipedia guideline - not a Wikipedia policy. Sorry if there was any confusion, & thanks for your consideration. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Rough Draft Proposal

Wiki-Stalking - Due to the nature of wikipedia's collaborative process, it is not uncommon that editors will repeatedly encounter other editors who share similar editing interests. Furthermore, wikipedia's editing tools permit users to view a history contributions made to the encyclopedia by fellow editors. This feature is often a valuable and useful tool for wikipedians to interact with their colleague editors, but like any other editing feature it should not be abused. While using this tool within reason is permitted, stalking other editors is generally frowned upon. Wiki-stalking entails an evidenced distinctive editing pattern in which one user intentionally follows another editor around wikipedia for purposes that are not constructive to the encyclopedia's content or conducive to its collaborative environment. Wiki-stalking is problematic as it typically violates the good faith assumption mandate by subjecting the targetted editor to harassment and unmerited scrutiny. It is considered disruptive to wikipedia even when the wiki-stalker's edits are minor, and often has the undesired effect of fostering undue hostility between editors within wikipedia's collaborative framework.

What Wiki-Stalking is -

  • A distinctive editing pattern in which one editor continuously and repeatedly follows another editor between multiple articles over an extended period of time and a wide variety of unrelated subjects for the purpose of making excessive "followup" changes to the original editor's work.
  • Stalking behavior can occur when the "followup" edits are both major and minor. Stalkers often make visibly disruptive changes to the edits of their subject, including vandalism, deletion of legitimate content, and reversions without reason. Minor edits, however, can also be construed as stalking when excessive and exhibited in a distinctive editing pattern that indicates their author is following another editor. This can include even minor wikilinking, grammatical changes, and unnecessary rewordings if the pattern is consistently aimed at the stalker's subject, and thus harassing to that editor.

Some editing patterns that may suggest stalking -

  • Repetitive and recurring non-chance encounters with the same editor over multiple different articles
  • Repetitive and recurring non-chance encounters with the same editor on multiple articles of unrelated subject matter
  • Repetitive and recurring "followup" changes to an editor's work that are made within a few moments, hours, or days of the original edits over multiple articles.

What Wiki-Stalking is NOT -

  • Chance repeat encounters between two or more editors on articles of common interest between them. Many wikipedians share in a wide range of interests and thus will likely encounter each other more than once on a common subject.
  • Repeat encounters between editors on articles of an unrelated subject where the encounter is a chance event, or where a "followup" edit is not a recurring and repetitive pattern of behavior covering multiple articles over the course of several weeks or even months.
  • Following an editor engaged in a pattern of disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor.
  • Viewing another editor's contributions page for informational purposes and to assist in good faith collaborative contributions to wikipedia.
  • Ordinary periodic article "cleanup" activities conducted within reason and in a civil manner that is conducive to collaborative relationships with the followed editor.

Wikipedians who feel that they are being "stalked" by another editor are encouraged to politely address their concern with that editor. Sometimes an editor may be unaware that his or her edits are being perceived as stalking, or create an uncomfortable editing environment for another, and simply addressing this concern can resolve the issue.

Precedents

Comments

Please post and sign editor comments here

  • Sometimes good cases make bad precedent. There's nothing inherently wrong with checking up on a particular editor's contributions. Many RC patrollers do so often because behind a bad edit one often finds many more. And many editors, once they become aware of a novel POV promulgated by a particular user will check to see if the same POV is present in related articles. There are certain editors that I watch very closely and I doubt if I am alone in this regard. The "Recycling Troll" never made any substantive contributions to the project, and so there was nothing to lose by banning him; I believe that the ban was motivated by the overall pattern of participation not merely the "stalking" aspect of it, and I doubt if Jimbo intended to create any sort of broader policy. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 20:01 (UTC)
  • TRT actually did make many useful edits. Minor corrections mostly, but positive. What freaked RickK and others out was simply that TRT followed Rick's edits almost article-by-article. The whole thing was blown out of proportion and a clear example of why you shouldn't feed trolls. -- Netoholic @ 5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
  • The key here is that TRT's edits, though useful in some cases, weren't substantive. Was it blown out of proportion? Perhaps. As for "you shouldn't feed trolls," I personally have found that to be a highly ineffective strategy, and the available sociological analysis agrees. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
  • UninvitedCompany - Thank you for your comments. Part of my intent here is to separate and distinguish between legitimate simple cross-checkings not unlike those you likely reference and the abusive cases of stalking in which an editor is singled out for following not because of anything wrong or problematic with the edits he or she makes but rather due to who they are. You are certainly correct that there's a time and place for a certain degree of cross checking and that should be reflected in the guideline. Stalking, however, is still a problem that should be dealt with in some fashion as it occurs when editors take things above and beyond simple legitimate cross checking edits. "Recycling Troll" did that and indeed his main pattern of participation that got him banned seems to have been stalking RickK. Sadly there are plenty of others like him on wikipedia who do the same thing, and as a result end up driving away decent editors and disrupting good faith attempts to develop and expand the encyclopedia. Also note that this proposal is intended to create a guideline that discourages the abusive forms of following editors around that constitute stalking, not a policy that prohibits following other editors in general. This was done intentionally and I invite any suggestions you or others may have to make this distinction better represented in the proposal. Thanks again. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 20:28 (UTC)
  • While I understand your intent and can sympathize with your concern and with the case of TRT and RickK in particular, I believe that the problem is one of proper management of problem users rather than a problem of "stalking" in particular. TRT was an obvious sock, because by their editing pattern it was clear that they had been here before. TRT was also smart enough to game the system and avoid any bright-line rules violations. My view is that when an obvious sock shows up and starts harrassing a long-time user, we should respond quickly and decisively regardless of the means of harrassment. As written, your proposal is wide open to abuse by ruleslawyering users whose weak edits are being checked and reverted by seasoned Wikipedians with similar areas of interest. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 21:06 (UTC)
Would you mind proposing revisions, or an alternative, then that you believe would avoid ruleslawyering abuse? I would not be opposed to adding a section stating to the effect that sourced and legitimate checks of weak edits are not stalking when done within reason (and I qualify that "within reason" as like everything else, even seasoned editors can become abusive if they take things above and beyond a reasonable level - e.g. biting the newbies and chasing otherwise potential editors away from wikipedia). Also, the fact that this is a guideline on etiquette etc. that editors should follow rather than a policy should substantially limit ruleslawyering. The problem is, and TRT's case illustrates this, that often simply managing problem users as they emerge isn't enough and it's a pain to have to go through arbitration etc. for each and every similar case just to get a simple, common sense result of stopping them. IOW, the strongest means to problem user management is to clearly define what's acceptable and what's not. It's a simple matter of being able to differentiate between the good and the bad. Right now there's very little in terms of guidelines that sufficiently do that in stalker cases, and as a result problem users slip through and do far more damage than should've ever been the case - especially when they are skilled at drawing the entire thing out through arbitration etc. By defining the issue more clearly we can avoid future situations of this sort. Thanks again. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 21:38 (UTC)
  • The alternative that I would suggest would be to (a) strengthen the sock puppet policy, and (b) make it clearer that we will be less indulgent of doubtful behavior among those whose contribution history is weak. I see these as the core issue. A "no socks" policy coupled with effective technical tools for enforcement is not something subject to ruleslawyering. In like fashion, a "your contributions must always exceed the trouble you make" policy, while a matter of judgement, is difficult to ruleslawyer. Stalking is but one manifestation of ill behavior and, at WP as IRL, is hard to define. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 5 July 2005 22:34 (UTC)
  • I concur that those are fair and needed actions. An issue still remains as even the most established wikipedians are capable of mischief, the abusive form of stalking among them. There are even a couple long time administrators who have been relieved for various types of abuses on wikipedia, thus while the guideline should be primarily directed at trolls like TRT it should also serve an advisory role to all wikipedians in general. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

A problem with this proposal is that it assumes bad faith on the part of the accused stalker. That seems entirely at odds with the overarching policy. It goes to the intent of the user, which is unknowable, rather than the value of the edits themselves. We already have a policy about personal attacks that covers incivility. If being simply being corrected is harassment then everybody on Wikipedia is continually harassed. If an editor is making substantive contributions in a civil manner it should not matter what articles are being edited. -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:00 (UTC)

  • Comment on the above. Please note that the drafted proposal is in no way intended to assume bad faith on the part of the accused stalker, but as with any other guideline on behavior simply sets forth specific guideline boundaries on behavior to distinguish between what types of use of the user contributions page are acceptable and what kinds constitute harassment. Indeed, in order to assume bad faith on the part of the stalker the guideline would (1) have to be an enforced policy, which it is not, (2) include an enforcement mechanism, which it does not have, (3) assert a burden of proof against the accused stalker, which it does not do, and (4) profess to know the intent of a specifically accused stalker's behavior, which it does not do. Much to the contrary, the proposal simply characterizes a certain type of stalking behavior as inappropriate for and disruptive to wikipedia's editing environment and does so based on a major precedent of the strongest authority. In the interest of full disclosure, it should also be noted that the above user, Willmcw, is currently the subject of a dispute resolution I requested against him for his stalking, personal harassment, and all around disruptive behavior towards myself and my edits on wikipedia[4] that is presently undergoing mediation. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:16 (UTC)

This proposal characterizes a common Wikipedia behavior, following the edits of problem editors, as "stalking." That is judging the intent of the editor - to stalk rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Calling someone a "stalker" is using an epithet just like calling them a liar or a hypocrite and is therefore a personal attack, which we already have a policy against. Curiously, maintaining a special list of another editor's edits is not on the list of wikistalking behaviors. ;) -Willmcw July 5, 2005 22:33 (UTC)

Comment - Contrary to the claim above, following the edits of problem editors is not characterized as "stalking" in the proposed guideline. Per the proposal: What Wiki-Stalking is NOT - Following an editor engaged in a pattern of disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor. The author of the above is also reminded of the "no personal attacks" policy in regards to his final sentence, the aforementioned list being a draft of an evidence page regarding his own behavior in a pending mediation against him over the allegation of stalking. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 22:54 (UTC)


I'm not sure what any of this has to do with this page. Assume good faith is a guideline telling people not to assume that others are out to get them, or out to ruin the project. How does "wiki-stalking" have anything to do with this? Perhaps you should create a proposal page somewhere. Isomorphic 6 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

Isomorphic - Greetings and thank you for your comment. Please take a moment to examine the precedent articles I linked to at the beginning of the proposal. I believe these will help clarify and answer some of your questions. In that earlier stalking case, as with others, the practice of stalking was deemed to be inappropriate harassment as it was done in bad faith (thus violating the good faith mandate that is the subject of this guideline) and was disruptive to wikipedia. I proposed it here as this seemed to be the most directly relevant existing guideline, but if you or any others think it should be offered as a stand alone proposal I'm open to that as well. Thanks! Rangerdude 6 July 2005 06:53 (UTC)

Revisions

Please post and sign revisions, changes, or alternate versions to the draft above here

What Wiki-Stalking is NOT - Following an editor engaged in a pattern of POV pushing, disruption and vandalism to existing article text, other bad faith editing practices, or other violations of Wikipedia policy, for the purpose of correcting the damage done by that editor.

added by Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:04 (UTC)
Comment - The term "POV pushing" is itself a bad faith assumption and a contentious charge that, unlike vandalism and disruption which are defined in detail by wikipedia policies and guidelines, is difficult to identify and often controversial when alleged. This addition could accordingly provide undue cover to persons engaged in acts of harassment and disruption by allowing them to claim an undefined justification, thereby circumventing the spirit of the guideline. The addition is also redundant as the Wikipedia policy of NPOV, governing genuine and defined POV problems, is already included among "other violations of Wikipedia policy." It is therefore considered an unfriendly amendment by the guideline proposal's author. Rangerdude 5 July 2005 23:14 (UTC)

Other comments

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Do you see the process of resolving our differences as "mediation against" me? If so I don't think that you are participating in a helpful spirit. It is mediation "between" us, not against us. Please proceed with good faith. Thanks, -Willmcw July 5, 2005 23:39 (UTC)
Actually the process started as an arbitration request I initiated against you for harassment and stalking. Mediation was suggested in response, and then offered by another editor, which is now pending. Thus when I reference the mediation it is made in the context of the dispute settlement process I initiated against you for the acts of stalking and harassment. Given the contentious nature of that dispute, I would suggest to you that further discussions aimed at resolving it occur during the mediation rather than here and every other article or talk page you follow me to. Thanks Rangerdude 5 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)
A) I am not the one who first mentioned the mediation in this discussion, B) I am not the one who keeps attacking another editor as a "wikistalker", c) I am not the one who is trying to create a new guideline to condemn the behavior that I am accused of, one which I wouldn't have been aware of if I hadn't had this page previously watchlisted (or had followed edits). Given that another editor did all of those things our ongoing dispute is already the main topic. Cheers, -Willmcw July 6, 2005 00:42 (UTC)
Once again please refrain from personal comments and keep this dispute in the mediation where it belongs. This section was created to address the development of a needed guideline on stalking based upon a standing precedent including, among others, Jimbo Wales. If you have good faith contributions to that discussion, please make them where appropriate. Further off-topic comments such as the above will be deleted from this section. Rangerdude 6 July 2005 00:48 (UTC)

What we do not need is more "guidelines". I disagree with Uninvited Co. too but I only have personal experience to go on, not sociological analysis, whatever that is. If someone is "stalking" you, just ignore them. If they're not doing anything damaging, what actually is the problem? It causes more strife fighting the troll than it would simply to move on. Editors do occasionally dog one another's edits. They sometimes do it to support one another as well as to piss each other off. But we don't need a guideline to tell us the latter is a bad thing to do. It's just not nice. All our interpersonal policies could pretty much be summed up with "Be kind". I don't see why you need to expend much energy on elaborating on that. You know when you're not being kind. Grace Note 02:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

Deletion?

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A reference to deletion is unnecessary and distracting. We should assume that any contributor to the project, whatever task they're engaged in, is here in good faith.

The only reason to single out deletion would be if there are people who nominate things for deletion, but don't edit articles or otherwise contribute. Why would we want to encourage that behavior? Isomorphic 06:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I agree whole-heartedly with AGF. It is a fabulous policy, and it is easy for anyone, myself included, to forget how important it is.

However, there is a major issue related to Good Faith that we need to not only talk about, but document in some sort of FAQ in the main article, to warn others about its abuse -- in other words, what AGF is "NOT."

The Issue: Where does it end? Is it a bottomless pit? At what point must we stop assuming good faith, and realize that a user is taking blatant advantage of and abusing it?

(If this has been addressed, please point me to a page so I don't rehash it here.)

I bring this up because I think AGF can be abused. We need to learn how to recognize when it is being abused. Some examples:

  • An editor is offered an alternative view to a story or a problem -- one that they don't agree with -- and simply refuses to see the other editor's side, even as a mental exercise. They're not being asked to agree with it, just to admit the editor has a reasonable argument, and they continue to be deliberately obtuse in this regard, repeating, "I just don't see it. I just don't see it," possiby lying about whether they actually see the point or not.
  • An editor contiuously complains and complains about others' "violation" of AGF, but the same editor continuously makes bad faith assumptions of their own, over and over. (I personally think that editors who do this are extremely suspicious.)
  • An editor simply refuses to go along with any changes to an article, demanding and demanding that others "prove" to their satisfaction, but, again, remains deliberately obtuse about giving those arguments any validity or "good faith" consideration at all.

I hope this discussion makes sense to you, and I welcome discussion. Thanks.

paul klenk 23:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Of course, there's a difference between assuming good faith and ignoring bad actions. If you expect people to assume good faith from you, make sure you demonstrate it. Don't put the burden on others. Yelling "Assume Good Faith" at people does not excuse you from explaining your actions, and making a habit of it will convince people that you're acting in bad faith.
I think the above covers that ground sufficiently. After all, this is supposed to be a page about why one should assume good faith in others, not a page about all the ways that this could be abused. There is one sentence I have considered adding, though: If you find yourself trying to use this guideling to win arguments, you have probably missed the point. Isomorphic 03:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The whole idea is not to think the worst of people. That's all. You don't need the policy. Just put the best spin on what people say. Yes, sometimes there's no positive way of looking at it, or it's blindingly obvious that they are not working in good faith. That's okay. The policy is "assume good faith" not "bend over". Grace Note 03:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The point of "assume good faith" here is that we put the best possible construction on everything contributors do. Sometimes contributors edit in such a way that it is clear they are being unhelpful, but even then we assume immaturity rather than genuine malice. We assume good faith until a contributor's actions can't be explained by any other motive than an intent to disrupt. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

As a guideline, AGF works as encouragement to behave in constructive manner. As policy, it would be problematic: abusable and not possible to properly enforce. Since AGF is not policy, I don't think we need to map out all of the tricky nuances of its application. --- Charles Stewart 17:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that's right, Charles. It's just a way of saying "don't think the worst of people", which is good advice in any sphere, I reckon. Grace Note 01:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. We don't need to make it into a legal document. As a side note, I have noticed that when someone points to "Assume Good Faith" in their own defense, it's usually a sign that they aren't acting in very good faith. People savvy enough to know about this page ought to be savvy enough not to cause problems. Isomorphic 05:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
There is also a distressing tendency of late for those peripheral to a discussion to jump in accusing one side or another of not Assuming Good Faith: "distressing" because often as not it's the same bunch of people harassing a good editor—often an admin—who is trying to restrain a bad one. —Phil | Talk 15:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Good Faith as to notability

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I find it problematic to assume good faith, in questions of notability. I think an article must establish notability and if it doesn't I must assume that it is not notable. Editors cannot be expected to google for a topic, in order to establish notability.--Carabinieri 10:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • This is not an issue of good faith. Good faith just means assuming that an editor is trying to help rather than deliberately sabotaging. It doesn't mean assuming that they are competant or intelligent, or that they understand the rules of Wikipedia. Good faith and notability would come in contact only in cases of suspected advertising or self-promotion. In such cases you can delete the article on notability grounds, but you should (at least initially) assume that the author was merely ignorant of Wikipedia standards, not deliberately ignoring them. Isomorphic 03:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • Furthermore, on the contrary: Editors should perform research in questions of notability. In AFD discussions, a bare contribution of "non-notable", with no accompanying reason or evidence that the editor has done any research at all to make that determination, is next to useless; whereas a contribution of "I searched Amazon for books written by this supposed author, and didn't find any. Xe therefore doesn't satisfy the WP:BIO criterion for published authors." is useful, provides a basis for decision that other editors can double-check, and demonstrates an informed decision being made. Uncle G 12:01, 10 October 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Assume_good_faith&oldid=25197618"