Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Assume good faith page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:AGF

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8	Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Title misinterpretation

From casual observation over the years, I don't think this guideline is phrased intuitively. "Assumption of good faith" is often interpreted, especially by those new to it, as similar to a "blind faith". Most importantly with something like, "I do not have access to the source so I 'assume good faith'", even though that's not how it's meant to be applied. Or, less often, when a bad actor insists that trust in their faith should be immutable even when there is evidence that doubts them.

More appropriate, I think, would be something like "presume good intent". The point of intent instead of faith is to not encourage the association with "blind faith", and the point of presumption instead of assumption allows for the fact that this is a starting place, and to make an effort to understand, request/clarify, understand, and incorporate the evidence rather than guessing when there is none. Both get closer to the heart of the principle than "assume good faith". czar 08:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar, I think you're right. For a smaller (and thus potentially more palatable) change, I think that Wikipedia:Assume good intentions might work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

good faith?

The only way for anything that's not endorsed by USA to appear on wikipedia is through vandalism. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed my edits

I know the figure was inaccurate but that’s what they provided as a source, here is the real figures https://www.oocities.org/~dagmawi/History/Ethiopia-Egypt-War.html And the causalities were unknown, no numbers were provided, there was no one captured or figures of wounded and Ethiopians didn’t keep written records of their causalities number and their army size was 80000 not 60000. Who is making those edits ? And why is no one checking the citations provided. They make up a figure and put a link that doesn’t have anything to do with the numbers 178.164.236.201 (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are African or Ethiopian aren’t you? 178.164.236.201 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change administerial actions to actions by administrators. 92.30.146.64 (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The term "administerial" is being used correctly, and so this appears to be an issue of taste. Nothing wrong with prefering a different wording, but for changing a section title of an official guideline of this project, I'm thinking it's best left to consensus or the standard bold, revert, discuss cycle. —Sirdog (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Empathy

let's do it empathetic style!!♥️🙏🏻💯😁💵💰 2600:6C40:1200:FAF:E274:398B:FD2B:BD3A (talk) 02:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]