Wikiquote:Assume good faith
|This page is a guideline on Wikiquote.
It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle, but it is not policy.
Feel free to update the page, but please discuss major changes on the talk page first.
|Wikiquote Policies and Guidelines|
|Working with others|
|This page in a nutshell:
Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikiquote. In allowing anyone to edit, we must assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikiquote would be doomed from the beginning. When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing. When you disagree with people, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating. Good faith is obviously not bad faith.
Be patient with newcomers. Newcomers unaware of Wikiquote's unique culture and the mechanics of Wikiquote editing often make mistakes or fail to respect community norms. It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Behaviors arising from these perspectives are not malicious.
Also, be patient with transfers from Wikipedia, as they are likely to edit Wikiquote based on the style most common to them, the Wikipedia style, and due to the similarity of both projects, they can hardly imagine differences of policies and custom between the two.
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 do not scold. There will be people on Wikiquote with whom you disagree. Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are 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.
This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice. Editors should not accuse the other side in a conflict of not assuming good faith in the absence of reasonable supporting evidence.
- w:Wikipedia:Assume the assumption of good faith
- w:Wikipedia:Assume the presence of a belly-button
- w:Wikipedia:No angry mastodons
- w:Wikipedia:On assuming good faith
- w:Wikipedia:Assume bad faith
- w:Wikipedia:Wiki spirit
- Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa (from meta)
- MeatBall:AssumeGoodFaith (from w:MeatballWiki)