This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:Assume good faith is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
Related Sponsors
| “ | Civility, Maturity, Responsibility | ” |
 |
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 the occasional exception. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
 |
This page in a nutshell:
|
| Wikipedia guidelines |
|---|
| Content |
| Article Inclusion |
| Notability |
| Classification |
| Editing |
| Discussion |
| Behavior |
| Style |
| Manual of Style
See also policies |
Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. 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, explain yourself using talk pages, 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 others cast doubt on their own good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself where you can. Be civil and follow dispute resolution processes, rather than edit warring or attacking editors.
Contents |
About good faith
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 some 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.
Good faith and newcomers
Newcomers unaware of Wikipedia's culture and the mechanics of Wikipedia editing make mistakes. Some newcomers advocate changing an unfamiliar policy to match their experience and expertise elsewhere and expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives may not be malicious. Please just be respectful and make your best effort to help.
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.
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 editing appropriately throughout.
Wikipedia administrators and other experienced editors involved in dispute resolution will usually be glad to help, and are very capable of identifying policy-breaching conduct if their attention is drawn to clear and specific evidence.
Accusing others of bad faith
Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.
See also
Guidelines
Essays
- Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
- Wikipedia:Honesty
- Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
- Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
- Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
- Wikipedia:No vested contributors
- Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
- Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
- Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
- Wikipedia:Assume good wraith
- Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
- MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith (from MeatballWiki)
- Wikipedia:Do not call a spade a spade
- Wikipedia:Don't assume
- Wikipedia:Competence is required
Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wikipedia content modification information:
- This page was last modified on 13 October 2008, at 04:12.
Wikipedia Authorship and Review
Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.
Wikipedia Usage Guidelines
This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:Assume good faith".
The URL for this specific entry is:
All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.