Fort Towson

Essays Low‑impact

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.EssaysWikipedia:WikiProject EssaysTemplate:WikiProject EssaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages Low This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale. The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

I changed the template to proposed. It will not become a guideline unless and until there exists a consensus to make it so.

Is this guideline needed? Couldn't th point be made by tweaking AGF? Avoid instruction creep. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not exactly the same, because it's not necessarily bad faith to cite AGF. I would keep it separate until the full extent of the guideline can be explored (ie: more people work on it and reply here). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 22:37

  I don't think it should be merged into WP:AFG, but I also don't think it needs to be a guideline to be a good page to keep around. There are a lot of pages in the Wikipedia: namespace that are words of wisdom, such as Wikipedia:No angry mastodons and Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot. Those and this are valuable pieces of advice but don't need to formally become guidelines. ('Course, I wouldn't oppose it being one. I just don't think it's an either-or question of whether it's a guideline or whether it's useful.) — Saxifrage ✎ 23:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Can this guideline be cited in a discussion? Otherwise we need Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of assumption of good faith. Seriously, this one may not solve the problem:

  • A: you are in bad faith (or something with the same implications)
  • B: please assume good faith
  • A: please assume the assumption of good faith

  I mean, in theory this guideline is a good thing, but I think that in practice it will be used like this. As Saxifrage suggest, this would better be an essay. - Liberatore(T) 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is supposed to be more of a guideline to live by, not one to cite. However, I think it can be cited by simply saying: "please only cite AGF in obvious cases of bad faith assumption." So, you would cite AAGF when someone has truly misinterpreted your statements, or when it's not an obvious case of bad faith assumption. Maybe this guideline can be tweaked to cover AAAGF, AAAAGF, etc, by simply saying "don't talk about good faith or bad faith unless youre talking to newbies, or to people who have clearly misinterpreted statements). — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-30 23:25

Good Faith: In business contracts you cannot assume good faith by the other party, it needs to be written into the contract or you cannot go to court afterwards and argue [if a breach of contract occurred] "that the other party acted in bad faith. If good faith is assumed and to be backed up by good acts, then this means in practice if carried out to the letter of the law that the other party cannot de devious and hide something he does not want you to know, which in a sale situation might lower the price? The law you might say allows bad faith if it's part of your bargaining strategy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.244.245 (talk) 07:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This essay is a sophism. The only possible situation where you would cite AGF is because you have substantial evidence in the editor's behavior that he is not assuming GF. And the AGF rule is only an assumption that can be overcome by an evidence. So if someone says "you are in bad faith" and there is not evidence for that bad faith he's talking about, then you can say he is not respecting AGF, and you don't break the rule. Laguna117 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is overelaborate. There are far too many policies and guidelines already. Scranchuse 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't really a policy or guideline. It's common sense. As cited above, there are plenty of Wikipedia space articles on common sense, which aren't policies or guidelines. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-03-31 01:17
• I agree with Brian, who I note created the page. It's not a guideline, and certainly not a policy. There is also no proposal to make this a guideline, from what I can see, and I would hope there isn't: as Brian says this is a view that may be taken to be "common sense" (to those to whom it is self-evident). Codification of such views is often undesirable. —Encephalon 17:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The project page was originally labeled a "guideline"[1] I changed the template to "proposal". The "essay" template is fine with me. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Donald, I had been aware of its initial state, having come across it when it was sitting in the article space. I'm glad you think the essay designation isn't objectionable too.;-) —Encephalon 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to propose it as a guideline to get some input. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 00:24
  • While AGF is a great principal, I reserve the right to weigh the evidence and decide that exhibited bebavior can override AGF. Also, as I said before, avoid instruction creep, which is what I see this as. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 01:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol. I was rather afraid you might.;-) Well, I'd oppose adoption of this as a formal policy or guideline. It is simply the application of the policy WP:FAITH to the act of quoting that policy. That's all. If it is really felt necessary, a sentence may be added to WP:FAITH to say that the policy should not be quoted with insincere intentions. Even this, of course, really should not be necessary. Incidentally, Donald is quite right: this is a classic example of instruction creep. Regards —Encephalon 01:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common sense = instruction creep? — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 01:52
      • Well, if you make policy of every single thing that is common sense, that's certainly instruction creep. In this case, I am not even convinced that, as it is currently written, this page is really common sense (it says that you should follow a policy but cannot ask others to do the same). Personally, I am contrary to this as a guideline, but if you are proposing it, it's a proposed guideline by definition :-) Let's see what others think. - Liberatore(T) 09:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can cite AGF when talking with newbies unlikely to have read the guideline, or in obvious cases of bad faith assumption, but shouldn't when you cannot be absolutely sure that you are judging the situation correctly. That's all it's saying. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 16:10
          • Which makes it a matter of interpretation and judgment. I don't think making this a guideline will help. If another editor posts something that implies you are not acting in good faith, how can you still assume that they are assuming good faith? -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 16:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Because you can always misinterpret what they say, just as they can misinterpret your original statements. Either that, or you actually weren't acting in good faith. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-04-1 16:43
• Appears to be overelaborate. Not wanting to stuff beans up anybody's nose, but we're going to end up with Wikipedia:Assume that the assumption of good faith is being assumed by those who are assuming it. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

"When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF."

How about:

"When involved in a discussion, it is best never to defend oneself using WP:AGF."

The point being that it's very much acceptable to use this policy to defend a user who is under attack. Also, this might be better if it's incorporated into the WP:AGF page. --Singkong2005 07:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree on both points. As currently stated, it appears to contradict MeatBall:DefendEachOther. Doubtless the weakened version is in theory susceptible to "tag-team protestation", but rather that than the alternative. Also, having them be separate pages is going to encourage the two to continue to diverge, which will ultimately be very unhelpful if we end two "equal and opposites" guidelines. Alai 21:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but the ideas put forth by this page make no logical sense. It says that that "the very act of citing AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith." This is not true. If I make an edit, and someone else disagrees with it, but rather than politely open a dialogue with me, they accuse me of vandalism (which has happened), then their failure to adhere to GF is not an "assumption" on my part, but a fairly obvious statement of observation. Good Faith is essentially an extention of civility. It just means that one does not assume the worst motive on the part of an editor. Is this page seriously suggesting that uncivil behavior and unproven accusations are anything other than self evident? Whether a person is acting in good faith is easily determined by the approach they take when disagreeing with another editor. The page also says that it is best not to cite the rule. But why? If a policy or guideline is being violated, then how else is it to be enforced if not with a polite admonishment? I'm sure its originators had the best of intentions, but this page looks completely ill-conceived, and the only "change" I think is appropriate is deletion. Nightscream 08:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit made this page show up on my watchlist; thinking of it, I realized that there is a fundamental problem with the idea, even assuming Carbonite's law at face value. Essentially, Carbonite's law says "citing AGF is a sign that you are not acting in good faith". Citing WP:AGF is a sign of not acting in good faith (an effect, not a cause). As a result, not citing WP:AGF would be an effective way to conceal that you are not acting in good faith.

Anyway, this page has had little support from the community. It's a fine personal essay, but since it appears to be supported only by its author, it should be moved to user space. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be best converted to an essay; it discusses a common sense topic and seems as though it would be better suited to provoke thought rather than becoming a guideline or policy. -DanDanRevolution 23:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this article does not have the consensus to become policy. - Liberatore(T) 13:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With this argument you get a recursive problem (i.e. AGF -> AAGF -> AAAGF -> AAAAGF -> etc.). ~ UBeR 01:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This would only happen if people started citing AAGF. But it's not a guideline or policy, so that's not likely. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-04-06 17:46Z
  • The implication of recursion is that the assumption of good faith should be assumed, that is, criticism need not be treated seriously - we can assume that the person making the criticism *actually* assumed good faith, and will continue to do so in future. 87.165.197.20 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Brian0918 - After a few months of editing Wilikepdia and occasionally citing WP:AGF as a friendly reminder of behavior standards, I came across the essay, Assume the assumption of good faith (AAGF) in about January 2007. Until I read your statement "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith," I had not realized that my friendly citation of WP:AGF probably was not being received in a friendly manner and, in fact, may have antagonized the situation. I gave your profound statement much thought and it really opened my eyes as to high standards towards which I can work. As we all essentially are equally positioned in Wikipedia, the very act of supporting judgmental statements with a cited policy, guidance, or other process may not assume good faith in some circumstances. I strive to guide my posts by the higher standard AAGF and wanted to thank you for posting the AAGF essay. -- Jreferee 16:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:AGF, I would suggest the following addition:

"This essay does not require that editors continue to assume the assumption of good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." ~ UBeR (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, no. That simply nullifies WP:AGF. Anyone who feels justified in suspending AGF feels that evidence of lack of good faith in the other is present. There is no need to ever suspend AGF. It's much better to assume people are acting in good faith, but are simply mistaken, uninformed or wrong about something, and always leaving open the possibility that you might be the one missing something. That is the essence of WP:AGF. Even if someone is not acting in good faith and their goal is to subvert Wikipedia, you don't have to suspend AGF to deal with him or her fairly and properly. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a proof that people today would rather twiddle with the hairs in their nostrils than do what they ought to. --VKokielov (talk) 04:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In heated debates, users often cite Wikipedia's guideline of assuming good faith. However, the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith. Carbonite's Law tells us, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith." It is in combining Carbonite's law with AGF that we produce AAGF: Assume the assumption of good faith, which simply states:

"When involved in a discussion, it is best never to cite WP:AGF."

It is true that "the very act of citing WP:AGF assumes that the opponent is assuming bad faith", but so what? Carbonite's Law? I totally disagree with, "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user was acting in good faith."

I've encountered countless editors in my years at Wikipedia who clearly had suspended good faith about me or someone else, but who were clearly acting in good faith themselves. They just did not fully understand and appreciate WP:AGF, its purpose, and/or its value.

There is no need to ever suspend the assumption of good faith about anyone, and there is nothing wrong about reminding others of that (including by citing WP:AGF), nor is reminding someone of WP:AGF evidence whatsoever that the reminder himself is not acting in good faith.

Carbonite's Law is simply not true, and AAGF depends on it. This essay should be deleted. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, unless WP:AGF is deleted as well. If one is constantly telling others to AGF, there is very likely a problem with that editor. WP:AGF and WP:AAGF have a relationship analogous to that of WP:COMMON and WP:NOCOMMON. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, however, regarding Carbonite's law. I would suggest that it be changed (if that's possible) to "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the higher the probability that said user is actually the problem." One can essentially be acting in good faith and yet still be a problem editor. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or how about this: "the more a given user invokes Assume good faith as a defense, the lower the probability that said user is him- or her-self assuming good faith." PSWG1920 (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: do essays even get deleted in an AfD style like this? – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is with WP:AAAGF? -- πϵρήλιο 14:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While this essay is cute, it really makes no sense. Assuming the assumption of bad faith is not assuming bad faith, because people can assume bad faith in good faith, the same way people can put original research, cruft, or bad sources into the encyclopedia in good faith. Assuming someone's a vandal isn't a bad-faith action, so why would assuming that someone's assuming someone's a vandal be an assumption of bad faith? It's just silly.– DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 20:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't over-analyze, the point is clear. Exhorting someone to "Assume Good Faith" is about as unhelpful in most circumstances as telling someone to "use common sense". PSWG1920 (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it may be unhelpful at times, but it is:

1. not always unhelpful (which is what the nutshell says)
2. not an assumption of bad faith, which is what the second sentence of the essay says.

So what's the basis behind this essay? And frankly, I don't see myself as over-analyzing, since these are the fundamental statements that this essay is making, not meaningless details or examples.– DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 20:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, citing Assume good faith is very different from citing WP:Common sense. Common sense is very subjective and non-descriptive, and saying that someone isn't using common sense is insulting to a person's intelligence. If someone tells you to just use common sense, it's not like a light bulb goes off in your head and suddenly you know what to do. On the other hand, Assume good faith alerts you to a specific action you might not have been aware you were doing, or which you might not have been aware was bad, similar to being told to avoid original research, to be civil or to not bite the newcomers. I think the two situations are very different, and that citing AGF can be very useful, especially to new Wikipedians who might not have ever thought about those actions in those terms before. – DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of the dilemma. If User A expresses the belief that User B wants to make a particular article into an attack on its subject, is User A assuming bad faith? At its heart AGF is about assuming that others genuinely want to improve the encyclopedia. However, it could be that User B truly and honestly believes that the encyclopedia is best served by having an attack piece on a subject s/he dislikes. So it can be argued that User A has not assumed bad faith. Whether s/he has made any unwarranted assumption depends on what User B has actually said and done. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow how the point you're making supports the essay. Could you explain further?– DroEsperanto^{(t / c)} 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that User B or an ally is likely to tell User A to AGF in that circumstance, even though User A has not actually accused User B of bad faith. Therefore, User B should AAGF and not mention AGF. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to remove or change everything which suggested that Assuming the assumption of bad faith is itself assuming bad faith. I think the basic idea here still holds. PSWG1920 (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is it looking better now? PSWG1920 (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]