Wikipedia:Assume good faith

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page.

Shortcuts: WP:AGF WP:FAITH WP:GOODFAITH WP:BONAFIDE

This page in a nutshell: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia: it is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were false, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning.

When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives and look for ways to reach consensus.

When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than attacking editors or edit warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence so that people can understand the basis for the concerns. Although bad conduct may be apparently due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives (which mention would tend to exacerbate resentments all around).

Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed, and exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others if a perceived assumption of bad faith was not clear-cut.

[edit] About good faith

See, even this mango agrees!

Everyone makes mistakes, both behavioral (like personal attacks) and content-based (like adding original research), and we can correct them with reminders most of the time. However, there will be disagreements on Wikipedia for which no policy or guideline has an easy answer. When disagreements happen, it may not be that someone has ill intent. Keep a cool head, and consider dispute resolution if disagreements seem intractable; many of them are not.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticised to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

Violation of policies, such as engaging in sock-puppetry, violating consensus, and so on, may be perpetrated in either good or bad faith. There are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved.

[edit] Good faith and newcomers

It is important to be patient with newcomers, who will be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's culture and rules, but may nonetheless turn out to be valuable contributors.

A newcomer's behavior probably seems appropriate to him/her, and a problem in that regard usually indicates unawareness or misunderstanding of Wikipedian culture. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their notion of how things should function, especially if they notice that there is already some level of disagreement over the policy in question. Similarly, many newcomers want to have their contributions to articles accepted without question, especially which pertain to subjects on which they have extensive knowledge. Behaviors arising from these perspectives, while perhaps misguided, are usually not malicious and should not be treated as such. Many new users who lack an intuitive grasp of Wikipedia customs are gradually brought around once the logic behind them becomes more clear.

[edit] Good faith and copyright

When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.

[edit] Demonstrate good faith

In addition to assuming good faith, encourage others to assume good faith by demonstrating your own good faith. You can do this by articulating your honest motives and by making edits that show your willingness to compromise, interest in improving Wikipedia, adherence to policies and guidelines, belief in the veracity of your edits, avoidance of gaming the system, and other good-faith behavior. Showing good faith is not required, but it aids smooth and successful interactions with 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 ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies, if one side is clearly acting 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.

[edit] Accusing others of bad faith

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

[edit] See also

Listen to this page (info/dl)

This audio file was created from a revision dated 2006-07-03, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the page. (Audio help)

More spoken pages

[edit] Guidelines

• Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

[edit] Essays

• MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith (from MeatballWiki)
• Wikipedia:Assume no clue
• Wikipedia:Assume clue
• Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
• Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
• Wikipedia:Be the glue
• Wikipedia:Competence is required
• Wikipedia:Conflict paradox
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Don't assume
• Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade
• Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope
• Wikipedia:Honesty
• Wikipedia:Lurkers
• Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
• Wikipedia:No vested contributors
• Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
• Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
• Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
• YOU are pretty darn awesome

[edit] Articles

• Hanlon's razor
• Presumption of innocence
• Reciprocal altruism
• Suspension of judgment